The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has scheduled March 9 to deliver judgment in a newly instituted lawsuit questioning the constitutional authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to suspend or remove elected state officials under a declared state of emergency. The date was fixed on Friday by Justice James Omotosho after legal representatives for both parties formally adopted their written submissions and advanced oral arguments supporting and opposing the suit. The action was initiated by a civil rights organisation, the Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), through its counsel, Nnamdi Nwokocha-Ahaaiwe. The group is challenging steps taken by the President following the proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year. According to the plaintiff, although the Nigerian Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency under Section 305, it does not authorize the suspension or removal of democratically elected executive or legislative office holders. The organisation further argued that appointing an interim administrator to oversee a state’s affairs goes beyond the scope of constitutional provisions. Justice Omotosho, while listening to submissions, observed that the matter closely resembles earlier suits that had been dismissed by the court. He noted that previous rulings relied heavily on jurisdictional limitations derived from the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act of 1962, which had been invoked to bar the Federal High Court from entertaining such disputes. The judge also referred to a decision reportedly delivered by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025, where a related case was dismissed, largely on procedural grounds rather than substantive constitutional interpretation. Responding to these points, Ahaaiwe acknowledged the existence of prior judgments but maintained that they were fundamentally flawed. He argued that the 1962 Emergency Powers Act had become obsolete and was deliberately excluded from Nigeria’s statute books before the commencement of the 1999 Constitution. Based on this position, the plaintiff’s counsel contended that a 2025 presidential modification order that purportedly relied on the 1962 law had no legal foundation. He described the order as unconstitutional, null, and legally ineffective. He further submitted that the Constitution has comprehensively addressed the issue of emergency powers, stressing that no executive directive can override or amend the clear provisions of Section 305. According to him, emergency declarations do not translate into unchecked executive authority over state governance structures. On the other side, counsel representing the 1st to 5th defendants, including the President and the Attorney-General of the Federation, defended the legality of the actions taken. They relied on the same 1962 Act and the subsequent modification order, arguing that disputes of this nature fall exclusively within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The defence therefore urged the Federal High Court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit in its entirety. Reports indicate that the plaintiffs are seeking 26 distinct reliefs, among them a declaration that Rivers State cannot be administered by an appointed official, specifically retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, outside constitutional procedures. The case has reignited a sensitive constitutional debate regarding the limits of presidential emergency powers—an issue many believed had already been conclusively resolved by earlier judicial pronouncements.
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice Binta Fatima Nyako, on Friday invalidated the suspension imposed on Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi State. The court ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional and consequently ordered her immediate reinstatement to the Senate. The ruling arose after Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had approached the court, contesting the legality of her six-month suspension by the upper chamber. Delivering her judgment, Justice Nyako highlighted that even though the National Assembly retains the legal authority to sanction or discipline its members for misconduct, such punitive actions must not go so far as to strip constituents of their right to fair representation. Justice Nyako emphasized that the six-month suspension violated constitutional safeguards and amounted to an excessive sanction. She pointed out that the disciplinary measure surpassed the 180-day legislative sitting period permitted for a House, thereby effectively silencing the voice of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s constituents for too long. While nullifying the suspension and directing the Senate to restore the senator’s membership without further delay, the court, however, found Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan in contempt of court. As a result, Justice Nyako imposed a fine of five million naira against her. Additionally, the senator was ordered to publicly apologize to the court. According to the judgment, this apology must be published in two widely circulated national newspapers and also shared publicly on Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Facebook page. By this decision, the Federal High Court has underscored the balance between a legislative body’s power to discipline its members and the constitutional guarantee that citizens must have continuous representation through their elected lawmakers. The judgment has drawn public attention to the limits of legislative sanctions while reaffirming judicial oversight in preserving democratic rights.
