Supreme Court Did Not Approve Dissolution of Democratic Institutions Under Emergency Rule — Falana

Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has said the Supreme Court did not approve or endorse the dissolution of democratic structures under emergency rule in any part of Nigeria, contrary to reports circulating in sections of the media.

Falana made the clarification in a statement issued on Monday following the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025, in the case of Attorney-General of Adamawa State and 19 others v Attorney-General of the Federation (SC/CV/329/2025).

He explained that the apex court struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to maintain the action. Despite declining jurisdiction, Falana noted that the court went ahead to examine the substantive issues raised in the case.

According to him, some media reports have wrongly interpreted the judgment as an endorsement of the suspension or dissolution of democratic institutions during the declaration of emergency rule. He stressed that this interpretation does not reflect the position taken by the Supreme Court.

Falana drew attention to the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, which he said clearly rejected any suggestion that the President has constitutional authority to dissolve elected executive or legislative institutions at the state level under emergency rule.

In the judgment, Justice Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the power to suspend or dissolve a state’s executive or legislature. The court affirmed that constitutional powers are shared among the executive, legislature and judiciary, and distributed across the federal, state and local government levels, with no arm or tier superior to another.

The Supreme Court further stated that, unlike the constitutions of some other countries such as India and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Constitution does not expressly allow the President to take over or temporarily displace state institutions during emergency rule. Justice Idris noted that this was a deliberate choice that reflects Nigeria’s commitment to federalism and the autonomy of state governments.

Falana said the clarification became necessary to correct the impression created by reports suggesting that the Supreme Court had validated the dissolution of democratic structures under emergency rule. He warned that misrepresenting such a landmark judgment could mislead the public and weaken constitutional governance.

He added that the decision of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles of separation of powers and the constitutional autonomy of states within the Nigerian federation.