The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), through its National Publicity Secretary, Comrade Ini Ememobong, has issued a forceful statement warning that the recent Supreme Court judgment on presidential emergency powers poses a “grave danger” to Nigeria’s federal democracy. The statement addressed the 6-1 split judgment in the suit filed by the Attorney-General of Adamawa State and others, which had challenged President Bola Tinubu’s power to suspend democratically elected officials and institutions during an emergency declaration, as was done in Rivers State earlier this year. Although the Apex Court struck out the suit for lack of a cause of action, its subsequent comments on the merits were interpreted as upholding the President’s actions, leading to the PDP’s immediate condemnation.
The PDP emphasized its respect for the authority and finality of the Supreme Court but asserted that it was compelled by conscience to draw attention to the serious risks emanating from the interpretation of the majority’s reasoning. The party’s core concern is anchored on the age-long legal principle that the express mention of one thing excludes others, arguing that the Constitution clearly and explicitly outlines the grounds and process for removing a Governor from office. Therefore, to empower a President to temporarily dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, even during an emergency, creates a pathway for constitutional abuse not envisaged by the framers of the 1999 Constitution.
The party warned that the interpretation of this judgment has the immediate potential to reverse the hard-won democratic gains achieved over the last two decades. It argues that the ruling could unwittingly make state governments completely subservient to the Federal Government, thereby forcing them to seek political alignment by joining the ruling party—a trend the PDP claims is already evident across the country. The leaders fear that the judgment compels compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers, thereby undermining genuine political competition and autonomous governance at the state level.
Furthermore, the PDP raised a more troubling long-term concern regarding the logical extension of the judgment’s reasoning, particularly the constitutional provision in Section 305(3)(c) concerning “extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.” The party warned that this clause could, in the future, be dangerously interpreted to justify the suspension of other vital constitutional institutions, including the judiciary itself, thereby promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny across the federation, which is structured as a non-unitary state.
In response to these perceived threats, the PDP called for urgent constitutional and legislative action, urging the National Assembly to immediately initiate safeguards that clearly define and limit the scope of the President’s emergency powers to prevent imminent abuse and preserve Nigeria’s federalism. The party also called on Nigerians, civil society organizations, the media, and the international democratic community to remain vigilant in the defense of constitutionalism and the sanctity of the electoral mandate, while expressing hope that the Supreme Court will take the earliest opportunity to extensively clarify the constitutional boundaries of these powers.
