Trending 
Nigeria’s Supreme Court confirmed the power of the President to declare a State of Emergency, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, without explicitly approving the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu, according to the summary of its judgment in Attorney General of Adamawa State & 10 Others v. Attorney General of the Federation & Another on Monday.
While the apex court acknowledged that a state of emergency may, in certain circumstances, interfere with democratic structures in an affected state, it avoided making a definitive pronouncement on the constitutionality of the emergency rule imposed in Rivers State.
The court, in a 6–1 majority decision, struck out the suit filed by 11 states on jurisdictional grounds. It held that the plaintiff states failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and could not invoke the court’s original jurisdiction because the emergency rule was not declared in any of their states. The court also found that Rivers State did not consent to the suit and that no dispute existed between the Federation and the plaintiff states.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court emphasised that approval of a presidential emergency proclamation by the National Assembly must follow strict constitutional procedure. The court stated that voting in the House of Representatives must be conducted by division, with votes recorded by name, constituency and choice, and published accordingly. In Rivers State, approval in the House of Representatives was reportedly taken by voice vote, contrary to the Standing Orders of the House.
The summary of the majority decision, read by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, suggests that the emergency rule in Rivers State was not endorsed in line with the prescribed legal process, raising questions about its validity.
The Supreme Court explained that because the case was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, its comments on the merits of the emergency proclamation do not carry the binding force of a decision delivered in a matter properly before the court. The justices noted that their brief observations on the substance of the case were made solely due to its grave constitutional significance.
The judgment has added a fresh nuance to the debate over the scope of presidential emergency powers, underscoring the importance of strict compliance with constitutional procedures in exercising such authority.
