The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has expressed deep concern over the implications of a recent Supreme Court judgment widely interpreted as endorsing President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, warning that such an interpretation could undermine Nigeria’s democracy and federal structure.
In a press statement issued on Monday, December 15, 2025, and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Comrade Ini Ememobong, mnipr, the PDP reacted to the apex court’s split decision (six to one) in suit number SC/CV/329/2025, filed by the Attorney-General of Adamawa State and others against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly.
According to the party, the suit challenged the powers of the President to suspend democratically elected officials, including a Governor and Deputy Governor, as well as democratic institutions such as the Rivers State House of Assembly. While noting that the Supreme Court struck out the suit for lack of a cause of action, the PDP observed that the court nevertheless made comments on the substantive issues, which have been “largely interpreted as upholding President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State earlier this year.”
“While we respect the authority of the apex court and recognise its finality within our jurisdiction, we are nevertheless compelled to draw attention to the grave dangers that can emanate from the interpretation of the reasoning in this judgement on the political landscape of our country,” Ememobong said.
The PDP anchored its concerns on constitutional principles, stressing that “the express mention of one thing excludes others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and the clear constitutional position that no person or institution (other than the State House of Assembly or a court of law), is empowered to remove a Governor from office, even temporarily, during the subsistence of a constitutional term.”
“To hold otherwise,” the party warned, “is to create a pathway by which a President, with the active support of the National Assembly, can compel political alignment or compliance through the instrumentality of emergency powers in ways not envisaged by the Constitution.”
The opposition party further cautioned that the prevailing interpretation of the judgment could reverse Nigeria’s democratic gains by making state governments subservient to the Federal Government. It argued that such a trend could pressure states to seek political survival by “connecting to the centre” through alignment with the ruling party.
More troubling, according to the PDP, is the possibility that Section 305(3)(c) of the Constitution—relating to “extraordinary measures to restore peace and security”—could be stretched in the future to justify the suspension of other constitutional institutions.
“We cannot reconcile how in a federation (not a unitary state) an elected President can be empowered to dismantle the democratic structures of a federating unit, sack elected officials and appoint leaders there, without consciously promoting authoritarianism and entrenching tyranny,” Ememobong stated.
Describing itself as “a political party wholly committed to the protection and consolidation of democracy in Nigeria,” the PDP called on the National Assembly to urgently introduce constitutional and legislative safeguards to clearly define and limit the scope of presidential emergency powers.
The party also urged Nigerians, civil society organisations, the media and the international democratic community “to remain vigilant in the defence of constitutionalism, federalism, and the sanctity of the electoral mandate.”
The PDP concluded by expressing hope that the Supreme Court would, at the next opportunity, “extensively clarify the constitutional boundaries of emergency powers, in the overriding interest of justice, democracy, and the long-term stability of our Republic.”
