Nigeria’s Supreme Court has ruled that the president may suspend governors and other elected officials during a lawfully declared state of emergency, in a 6–1 judgment that strengthens federal powers and intensifies debate over constitutional limits.
The court said on Monday in Abuja that section 305 of the 1999 Constitution permits “extraordinary measures” to restore order, provided such suspensions are temporary, proportionate and tied directly to resolving the crisis.
In a split decision delivered in Abuja, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the president’s authority to declare a state of emergency in any state and, for a limited period, suspend elected officials where necessary to prevent chaos and anarchy.
The justices dismissed a suit filed by several PDP‑controlled states who contended that the suspension of governors and state lawmakers and the appointment of an administrator violated democratic guarantees and federalism.
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that section 305 empowers the president to adopt “extraordinary measures” once a valid state of emergency is in force, and that the Constitution does not narrowly define what those measures must be.
He reasoned that, where normal governance has effectively broken down, keeping elected officials in office “in name only” while an administrator works to restore order does not amount to outright removal.
Justice Idris upheld preliminary objections by the Attorney‑General of the Federation and the National Assembly, finding that the plaintiffs failed to disclose a sufficient cause of action to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but he proceeded to consider the case on its merits and dismissed it.
According to the judgment, the president retains discretion on how to implement emergency rule, subject to constitutional requirements that the proclamation be communicated to and approved by the National Assembly.
In a forceful dissent, Justice Obande Ogbuinya agreed that the president may declare a state of emergency but rejected the notion that this extends to suspending governors, deputies and state legislators.
He argued that allowing such suspensions is inconsistent with the logic of federalism and cautioned that emergency powers should not “swallow” the democratic mandates of elected state officials.
