Premium News
Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has clarified that the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures during the declaration of emergency rule in any part of Nigeria, contrary to “misleading reports” in sections of the media.
In a statement issued on Monday, Falana referred to the judgment delivered by the apex court on December 15, 2025, in Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Ors v Attorney-General of the Federation (Suit No SC/CV/329/2025).
According to Falana, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit “for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs and lack of jurisdiction to maintain the action.”
He, however, noted that despite declining jurisdiction, the court went further to consider the substance of the case.
“However, the apex court decided to consider the merit of the substantive case. Curiously, the judgment has been wrongly interpreted by the media,” Falana said.
He stressed that “contrary to the misleading reports, the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures during emergency rule in any state of the Federation.”
Falana drew attention to the leading judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris of the Supreme Court, which he said clearly rejected the notion that the President has the constitutional power to dissolve elected institutions at the state level during emergency rule.
In the judgment, Justice Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not empower the President to temporarily dissolve executive or legislative institutions of a state.
“By virtue of sections 4-7 of the Constitution, governmental powers divided among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, and distributed across the Federal, State, and Local Government tiers. No arm or tier of government is constitutionally superior to another, and none may lawfully usurp the powers expressly vested in another,” the Justice stated.
He further emphasised the limits of presidential authority under Nigeria’s constitutional framework, noting that, “unlike the Constitutions of India and Pakistan, Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution does not expressly confer power on the President to assume or temporarily displace executive or legislative institutions of a State.”
According to the apex court, this omission was not accidental.
“This omission is deliberate and reflects Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to federalism and the autonomy of state governments,” Justice Idris added.
Falana said the clarification had become necessary in view of reports suggesting that the Supreme Court had validated the suspension or dissolution of democratic institutions under emergency rule, a position he maintained was not supported by the judgment.
He warned that misinterpretation of such landmark decisions could mislead the public and undermine constitutional governance.
He stressed that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement reaffirmed the autonomy of states and the separation of powers entrenched in the Constitution.
