Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana, has clarified that the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic institutions in any state of the federation during emergency rule, contrary to widespread media reports.
Falana clarified while commenting on the judgment delivered by the apex court on 15 December 2025, in the case of Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Others v Attorney-General of the Federation (Suit No. SC/CV/329/2025).
According to him, although the Supreme Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the action, the court nevertheless proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised in the case.
He noted that sections of the media had misinterpreted the judgment, giving the impression that the Supreme Court sanctioned the suspension or dissolution of executive and legislative arms of government at the state level during a declaration of emergency.
Falana stressed that such an interpretation is incorrect.
In the lead judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the Supreme Court categorically held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the power to dissolve or suspend democratic structures in any state under emergency rule.
Justice Idris emphasised that governmental powers under the Constitution are clearly separated among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, and are distributed across the federal, state, and local government tiers.
“By virtue of Sections 4–7 of the Constitution, governmental powers are divided among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, and distributed across the Federal, State, and Local Government tiers. No arm or tier of government is constitutionally superior to another, and none may lawfully usurp the powers expressly vested in another,” the Justice stated.
The apex court further observed that, unlike the constitutions of countries such as India and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Constitution deliberately refrains from empowering the President to assume or displace state executive or legislative institutions during a state of emergency.
According to the court, this omission reflects Nigeria’s firm commitment to federalism and the constitutional autonomy of state governments.
Falana urged the media and the public to accurately reflect the court’s position, warning that misrepresentation of judicial pronouncements could undermine constitutional governance and public understanding of the law.
(Vanguard)
