President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the 18th day of March, 2025 via a national broadcast, declared a state of emergency in the Petroleum hub of Rivers State located in the South-South region of the country. In addition to the declaration of a state of emergency as provided for under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the president purportedly suspended the governor, the deputy governor and the House of Assembly of the state for an initial period of 6 months.
As is to be expected, a flurry of reactions has greeted this declaration with respected organisations and eminent persons giving their take on the legality or in some cases, the propriety of suspending the elected officials of a state in Nigeria.
While many have argued that the power to declare a state of emergency over the whole or a part of the federation granted to the president does not provide by implication, for the suspension from office of the executive and legislative arms of a state which are autonomous of the national government, others have posited that the president indeed possesses the power to do so in order to avert an imminent or occurring danger.
It is thus, pertinent to conduct an analysis of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution vis-a-vis basic law of key Federations as well as decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to decipher whether the Constitution impliedly gives the president such powers or not.
Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grants the president the power to declare a state of emergency all across the federation or in any part thereof when;
(a) the Federation is at war;
(b) the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war;
(C) there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security;
(d) there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger;
(e) there is an occurrence or imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity, affecting the community or a section of the community in the Federation;
(f) there is any other public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the Federation; or
(g) the President receives a request to do so in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.
Sub section 2 of this section makes the resolution of the two houses of the National Assembly; the Senate and House of Representatives a necessity before the state of emergency can take effect.
It is important to note that nowhere in this section is the suspension of the governor and House of Assembly of a state in which a state of emergency is declared mentioned as part of the powers of the president.
On the other hand, Section 180 states conclusively the basis upon which a governor shall cease to hold office which are;
- when his successor in office takes the oath of that office,
2. if he dies while holding such office,
- the date when his resignation takes effect and;
- if he ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of the constitution: which refers to sections 188 by way of impeachment and 189 referring to removal by medical incapacitation. There is no provision for removal by the way of suspension by the president. By the Latin maxim Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius, meaning, the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of others, there can be no other means by which a governor or deputy governor can cease to hold office either temporarily or permanently other than by those means expressly stated in the Constitution. This makes the “suspension” of the governor and deputy governor of Rivers State by the president of the federation, an unconstitutional and unlawful act and ultraves Section 305.
Section11(4) of the Constitution also states the only condition in which the law-making powers of the state Houses of Assembly might be temporarily usurped and the body capable of taking over such functions which is the National Assembly. There is no provision for the president doing so neither is a “sole administrator” so empowered.
In the United States of America, from which we borrowed our practice of federalism and presidentialism, there also exists the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which empowers the president of the United States to declare a state of emergency in the US or any part of it during a time of severe crises and exercise extra ordinary powers to bring the situation under control. There is no record of the executive or legislative arms of the government of any state being deposed or “suspended” in the wake of a declaration of emergency by the president. Not even when a nation-wide emergency was declared in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This should be a guide in interpreting the emergency powers granted the Nigerian President by our own 1999 Constitution.
The most fundamental principle of federalism which Nigeria practices as provided for by the 1999 Constitution is the autonomy and equality of the federal and state governments. Neither is superior to the other but rather, they are supreme within the sphere of the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Each level of government is thus, able to chart an independent course of action restrained only by the law. A situation in which the president “suspends” a state government official thus vitiates this cardinal principle of autonomy and makes the state government an appendage of the federal.
The Supreme Court has upheld the principle of autonomy of state governments in judgments touching on the relationship between the centre and sub-nationals in cases like A.G. Bendel v. A.G. Federation & Ors (1982) LLJR-SC amongst others.
This writer therefore posits, that the purported suspension of the executive and legislative arms of government in Rivers State is unconstitutional and patently unlawful. A pronouncement which makes a mockery of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the principles of federalism and democracy provided for therein. President Bola Tinubu will do well to reverse his anomalous proclamation. Failing to do so, the Supreme Court should do so in the suits now before them by the Attorney Generals of select states of the federation
Nnaemeka Emma Chikezie Esq, a lawyer and academic writes from Kaduna State.
