Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Oyo State Attorney General, Mutalib O. Adebayo, has said that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State was a final judgment and not a mere procedural ruling.
Adebayo made the clarification during an interview on Eagle 102.5FM, Ilese Ijebu, while speaking on the Tuesday edition of the programme, Frontline, where he analysed the apex court’s decision affirming the constitutional powers of the President to declare a state of emergency.
He explained that there had been widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on Monday, stressing that the matter had been conclusively determined.
“Let me correct a wrong impression,” Adebayo said. “What the Supreme Court delivered was a final judgment. The issue of whether the President has the power to declare a state of emergency is already settled beyond doubt.”
The legal debate followed the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by Tinubu on March 18, 2025. The President had suspended the governor, deputy governor and members of the State House of Assembly for six months and appointed an administrator to oversee the affairs of the state, citing Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
Governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party later challenged the action at the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of suspending elected officials and replacing them with a sole administrator. They argued that the move violated constitutional provisions on the powers and independence of state governments.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the President acted within the law, holding that he possessed the constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency and suspend elected officials within a defined period to prevent a breakdown of law and order.
Adebayo noted that the suit filed by the 11 PDP controlled states was not centred on the power to declare an emergency, but on whether such power extended to suspending elected officials.
“The plaintiffs were clear,” he said. “They did not challenge the power to declare a state of emergency. Their contention was whether the President can go further to suspend a governor, deputy governor and lawmakers who derive their mandate directly from the people.”
According to him, although the court initially addressed issues relating to jurisdiction, it went on to determine the substantive questions raised in the suit.
“Even after holding that the states lacked the locus to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, the court still went ahead to pronounce on the merits and reaffirmed that the President has the constitutional power, including the power to suspend elected officials during a genuine emergency,” he said.
Drawing from past precedents, Adebayo referred to previous emergency declarations, including that of Plateau State during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. He argued that the Rivers situation was distinct due to the level of institutional collapse recorded in the state.
“You cannot compare apples and oranges,” he said. “In Rivers State, governance had collapsed. There were parallel legislatures, budgets passed by a handful of lawmakers and a breakdown of constitutional order. No responsible president will watch a state descend into chaos.”
Addressing concerns that the ruling could weaken Nigeria’s federal structure, Adebayo dismissed claims that the country was drifting towards a unitary system.
“This power is not absolute,” he said. “The President must still secure the approval of the National Assembly, where all states are represented. That is a key safeguard and part of the checks and balances in our democracy.”
When callers participated in the programme, opinions were divided. Some supported the court’s decision, arguing that the crisis in Rivers State had made effective governance impossible.
“What was happening in Rivers was embarrassing,” a caller from Port Harcourt said. “You cannot have a situation where four lawmakers are passing budgets. The President acted to restore order.”
Others, however, expressed fears of possible abuse of emergency powers. A caller from Enugu warned that the ruling could be politicised, while another listener questioned the suspension of officials elected by the people.
Responding, Adebayo maintained that constitutional interpretation must be separated from emotions.
“I am a lawyer, not a political lawyer,” he said. “My position is based on the law and the facts. Courts decide matters on precedent, not sentiments.”
He added that the removal of elected officials through judicial processes was not new in Nigeria, noting that several governors and lawmakers had lost their offices following court judgments in the past.
“That is how the rule of law works,” he said.
