PDP rejects Supreme Court ruling on emergency rule, cites threat to democracy

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment affirming the president’s authority to declare a state of emergency and suspend elected officials, warning that the decision poses serious risks to Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

The apex court on Monday upheld President Bola Tinubu’s powers under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to impose emergency rule and suspend elected state officials for a limited period to prevent a breakdown of law and order. The ruling followed a legal challenge by PDP governors over the legality of the emergency rule declared in Rivers State in March.

President Tinubu had imposed a six-month state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and the state House of Assembly, and appointing a sole administrator to oversee the affairs of the state. The move drew sharp criticism, with PDP governors questioning whether the president had the constitutional authority to suspend a sitting governor and deputy governor.

In a split decision of six to one, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could, within a defined timeframe, suspend elected officials during a state of emergency. Reading the majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 grants the president discretion to determine the measures necessary to restore order during such periods. The court also struck out and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Tinubu later lifted the state of emergency in Rivers State in September.

Reacting to the judgment, the PDP, in a statement issued by its spokesperson, Ini Ememobong, described the ruling as a “dangerous democratic bend with far-reaching implications” for federalism and constitutional governance.

While acknowledging the finality of Supreme Court decisions, the party warned that the interpretation of the constitution adopted by the court could be abused. The PDP argued that the constitution clearly stipulates that only a state House of Assembly or a court of law can remove a governor from office, even temporarily.

“To hold otherwise,” the party said, “is to create a pathway by which a president, with the support of the National Assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the use of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the constitution.”