A fresh constitutional showdown over emergency powers is heading for judgment, as the Federal High Court in Abuja fixes March 9 to rule on whether President Bola Tinubu has the legal authority to remove elected state officials during a state of emergency.
Justice James Omotosho set the date on Friday after lawyers for both sides adopted their final written addresses in a suit challenging the President’s actions following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.
The case was filed by the Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), which argues that although the President may proclaim a state of emergency under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, he has no power to suspend or remove elected governors and lawmakers or appoint an interim administrator.
At the heart of the dispute is the appointment of a sole administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, to govern Rivers State during the emergency period. The plaintiffs insist that such an arrangement has no constitutional backing and amounts to an executive overreach.
Justice Omotosho noted that the suit closely resembles earlier cases he had dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, relying on the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act of 1962. He also cited a Supreme Court ruling of December 15, 2025, which reportedly struck out a related matter on procedural grounds.
However, counsel to the plaintiff, Nnamdi Nwokocha-Ahaaiwe, maintained that those decisions were wrongly decided. He argued that the 1962 Act is a “spent law” that was deliberately excluded from Nigeria’s statute books before the 1999 Constitution came into force.
According to him, any presidential order in 2025 purporting to modify or rely on a law that no longer exists is unconstitutional, null and void. He stressed that the constitution has “fully covered the field” on emergency powers and cannot be expanded by executive proclamation.
Lawyers representing the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation and other defendants countered that the 1962 Act and the subsequent modification order remain valid, insisting that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear such a dispute. They urged the court to strike out the suit.
The plaintiffs are seeking 26 reliefs, including a declaration that Rivers State cannot be governed by an appointed administrator outside the express provisions of the constitution.
With judgment now reserved, the case has reignited a contentious constitutional debate many believed had already been settled, raising far-reaching questions about the limits of presidential power during emergencies.
