The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled March 9, 2026 for the delivery of judgment in a fresh suit challenging the legal authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remove elected state officials during a declaration of a state of emergency.
Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for both the plaintiff and defence adopted their written processes and concluded oral arguments earlier in the proceedings.
The suit centres on the constitutional legality of actions taken under emergency powers, particularly the removal of elected officials — including state governors and lawmakers — following a presidential proclamation of a state of emergency.
This legal question has gained prominence after previous litigation brought by opposition‑led states reached Nigeria’s apex court, which held that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on such issues and struck out that case on technical grounds.
In March 2025, President Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, citing threats to law and order. The proclamation led to the suspension of elected officials, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, and the appointment of a sole administrator to manage the state’s affairs. Similar challenges to presidential emergency powers have triggered heated debate about executive authority and federal balance.
The fresh suit was filed by Nnamdi Nwokocha‑Ahaaiwe, who argues that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) — which grants the president power to declare a state of emergency — does not explicitly empower the removal of state executives or legislators as a consequence. Counsel for both sides presented lengthy arguments on constitutional interpretation, federalism and separation of powers before Justice Omotosho before the judge reserved judgment.
Critics of the president’s emergency powers have cited concerns about potential overreach and the need to protect the autonomy of state institutions.
Supporters emphasise national security imperatives and the discretion granted to the presidency under the Constitution to restore order when necessary, especially in situations involving breakdowns of peace.
Previous related litigation at the Supreme Court level ended with the apex court dismissing the matter on jurisdictional grounds, effectively leaving the legal landscape unresolved pending further challenges.
The March 9 judgment could have far‑reaching implications for Nigeria’s constitutional law and federal practice, particularly addressing how far the executive can go in using emergency powers to alter the political composition of subnational governments.
A ruling in favour of the plaintiff could constrain future emergency proclamations, while a decision supporting the president’s position would reinforce broad executive discretion in crisis situations.
Legal experts and political stakeholders are watching closely, noting that the outcome may influence how future emergencies — whether security, health, or political — are managed. Urban residents, investors and civil society groups have also expressed interest in the case, given its potential to shape governance norms and democratic accountability across Nigeria’s federating units.
As the Federal High Court prepares to deliver judgment on March 9 in this high‑stakes suit, the legal contest over the scope of presidential emergency powers remains at the forefront of Nigeria’s constitutional discourse.
The outcome will not only clarify executive authority limits but could also set precedent on the interplay between federal authority and state autonomy in constitutional emergencies.
