The Supreme Court of Nigeria has struck out a suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, a decision that analysts warn could accelerate the erosion of federalism and deepen governance risks across the country.
Delivered on Monday, December 15, 2025, the ruling has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum, highlighting the deepening fissures in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. The suit, originally filed in April 2025 by the Attorneys-General of 11 PDP-controlled states, challenged the constitutional validity of the President’s March 2025 emergency proclamation, which led to the suspension of Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the State House of Assembly.
In a split decision, the apex court upheld the preliminary objections of the Federal Government, ruling that the plaintiff states lacked the standing to litigate on behalf of Rivers State. The court noted that since no state of emergency had been declared in the plaintiffs’ own territories, there was no justiciable dispute between them and the Federation.
A “Missed Opportunity” for Constitutional Clarity
A new report by SBM Intelligence, titled “The Supreme Court & Nigeria’s Growing Governance Risk,” critiques the judgment as a triumph of “formalism” over substantive justice. The report argues that by focusing on technicalities regarding locus standi, the court missed a critical opportunity to define the constitutional limits of the President’s emergency powers, particularly regarding the suspension of elected officials.
“The majority’s avoidance of this core question… left a dangerous ambiguity rather than a clear precedent,” the SBM report notes. While the court acknowledged that Section 305 of the Constitution empowers the President to declare an emergency, it remained silent on whether this power extends to removing democratically elected representatives, leaving a “dangerous ambiguity that future presidents may exploit”.
The SBM report further highlights the dissenting opinion, which argued that emergency powers cannot legally extinguish constitutional governance. However, with the majority ruling standing, the judgment effectively provides a “judicial shield” for the Federal Government to bypass state governors and impose direct control, fundamentally altering Nigeria’s security architecture.
Erosion of Opposition and Economic Fallout
The geopolitical context of the suit was also significant. SBM Intelligence points out that while 11 states initially joined the suit, the number dwindled as governors defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). By the time of the judgment, Delta State had withdrawn following Governor Sheriff Oborevwori’s defection, leaving only five PDP states—Adamawa, Bauchi, Oyo, Plateau, and Zamfara—to pursue the case.
“This political context is not incidental,” the report states. “It underscores the steady erosion of opposition politics in Nigeria… detrimental to constitutional democracy”.
Economically, the implications are dire. SBM warns that the ruling introduces a “persistent political risk premium” on subnational governance. The validation of broad executive discretion creates uncertainty for investors, who may now view opposition-controlled states as high-risk jurisdictions where democratic structures can be suspended by federal fiat. This instability is expected to dampen investment appetite, particularly in resource-rich regions like the Niger Delta.
Public Reactions: A Nation Divided
The ruling has sparked intense debate among public figures and on social media, reflecting the polarized state of the nation.
In support of the judgment, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, hailed the decision as a victory for the rule of law. In a statement released shortly after the ruling, Fagbemi described the verdict as “a win for our fledgling democracy,” arguing that it “strengthened our jurisprudence and added another vital ingredient to consolidate our democracy” by clarifying the President’s powers to maintain order.
Conversely, the opposition has condemned the ruling as a step toward autocracy. Bolaji Abdullahi, the National Publicity Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), issued a scathing critique, warning that the judgment creates an “incentive for constitutional tyranny.” Abdullahi stated that the court’s decision “risks undermining constitutional governance, federalism, and the will of the electorate,” effectively concentrating excessive power in the Presidency.
On social media, reactions were equally divided. A video circulating on YouTube showed the “Rivers Women Unite For Sim,” a civil society group, protesting the decision. In the footage, a spokesperson for the group urged the President to reverse the emergency declaration, describing the suspension of Governor Fubara as “an assault on the people’s mandate” and calling for the immediate restoration of democratic structures.
Meanwhile, supporters of the Federal Government’s intervention celebrated the ruling online. The Rivers State Chapter of the APC posted a video on their social media channels where they “applauded” the Supreme Court’s decision. In the video, party representatives argued that the ruling underscores the necessity of obeying the laws of the land and serves as a “panacea to enthroning peace” in the volatile state.
As Nigeria grapples with the fallout of this landmark decision, the SBM Intelligence report concludes that the Supreme Court has retreated from its role as the “guardian of Nigeria’s constitutional order”. By prioritizing procedural technicalities, the court has left the door open for executive overreach, creating a fragile political environment where the “breakdown of law and order” can be subjectively determined by the centre to dismantle state-level democracy.
