Human rights lawyer Femi Falana has issued a critical clarification regarding a recent Supreme Court judgment, asserting that the apex court did not authorize the dissolution of democratic structures in any Nigerian state during periods of emergency rule. This statement addresses widespread media interpretations that, according to Falana, have misrepresented the court’s findings.

Falana’s comments stem from the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2025, ruling in the case of Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Others v Attorney-General of the Federation. While the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to the plaintiffs’ lack of locus standi, it also delved into the substantive issues presented.

He emphasized that the media’s portrayal of the judgment suggesting the Supreme Court sanctioned the suspension or dissolution of state executive and legislative bodies under emergency powers is factually incorrect. Such a misinterpretation, Falana warns, could have serious implications for public understanding of constitutional law.

The lead judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, unequivocally stated that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the authority to dismantle or suspend democratic institutions at the state level during a declared emergency. The ruling underscored the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Justice Idris highlighted that governmental powers are constitutionally divided among the executive, legislature, and judiciary, and distributed across federal, state, and local government tiers. He stressed that no arm or tier of government holds constitutional superiority over another, nor can one lawfully usurp the powers vested in another.

The Supreme Court further observed that Nigeria’s Constitution, unlike those of nations such as India and Pakistan, intentionally omits provisions empowering the President to assume or displace state executive or legislative institutions during a state of emergency. This deliberate omission, the court noted, reflects Nigeria’s strong commitment to federalism and the constitutional autonomy of state governments.

Falana urged media practitioners and the general public to accurately report and understand the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. He cautioned that the misrepresentation of judicial decisions risks undermining constitutional governance and eroding public trust in the legal framework.

Read Original

Keywords: Femi Falana, Supreme Court, emergency rule, democratic structures, constitutional law, state autonomy, federalism, presidential powers