The Peoples Democratic Party has expressed strong reservations over the Supreme Court’s decision that upheld the President’s authority to declare a state of emergency and suspend elected officials anywhere in the country.
In a statement released on Monday by its spokesperson, Ini Ememobong, the PDP described the ruling as a “dangerous democratic bend with far-reaching implications” for Nigeria’s federal structure and constitutional order.
“While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country,” the party said.
According to the PDP, the judgement poses a serious risk to democratic stability because it appears to legitimise the emergency rule declared in Rivers State, including the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly for a six-month period.
The party noted that the suit, marked SC/CV/329/2025, directly questioned whether the President possesses the constitutional authority to suspend democratically elected officials such as a governor or deputy governor, as well as elected institutions like a state house of assembly.
The PDP argued that the court’s position seemed to validate emergency rule even when it is not carried out strictly in line with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), thereby opening the door for a president to suspend a sitting governor with minimal justification.
“Our concern is anchored on the age-long principle of law that the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or institution (other than the state house of assembly or a court of law) is empowered to remove a governor from office, even temporarily, during the subsistence of a constitutional term,” the statement read.
The party warned that accepting such an interpretation could create a scenario where a president, with the backing of the National Assembly, might use emergency powers as a political weapon to force compliance or realignment, in ways not contemplated by the Constitution.
“To hold otherwise is to create a pathway by which a president, with the active support of the national assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the constitution,” the PDP stated.
The opposition party further cautioned that the judgement, if left unchecked, could erode Nigeria’s federal system by making state governments overly dependent on the central government, thereby pressuring them to align politically with the ruling party.
“We submit that the interpretation of this judgment has the potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains by unwittingly making state governments completely subservient to the federal government, forcing them to seek to ‘connect to the centre’ by joining the ruling party, as we are already witnessing,” the statement added.
The PDP questioned how, in a federal system, an elected president could be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a state, remove elected officials, and install alternative leadership without encouraging authoritarian tendencies.
“We cannot reconcile how, in a federation (not a unitary state), an elected president can be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials, and appoint leaders there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny,” Ememobong said.
The party therefore called on the National Assembly to urgently introduce constitutional and legislative measures to clearly define and limit the scope of presidential emergency powers, warning that failure to do so could invite abuse and weaken Nigeria’s democracy.
President Bola Tinubu had, on March 18, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and the State House of Assembly for six months. Governors elected under the PDP subsequently challenged the action at the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions governing the autonomy and tenure of state governments.
What you should know
The PDP’s reaction highlights growing concern over the balance of power between the federal and state governments in Nigeria.
At the centre of the debate is whether emergency powers granted to the President under the Constitution can extend to suspending elected state officials. The Supreme Court’s judgement, while legally binding, has raised fears of possible political misuse and centralisation of authority.
The opposition believes clearer constitutional limits are needed to prevent emergency powers from undermining federalism, democratic institutions and the independence of state governments.
