Supreme Court did not explicitly endorse Rivers Emergency Rule — Legal Analysis

Contrary to widespread media reports, the Supreme Court did not expressly validate the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu, according to a legal analysis of the court’s judgment summary.

Human rights lawyer, on his verified X account, Inibehe Effiong, who reviewed the 14-page summary of the apex court’s decision in Attorney General of Adamawa State & 10 Ors. v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor., said many public interpretations of the ruling do not accurately reflect the court’s reasoning.

He explained that while the majority decision of the Supreme Court Justices (6–1) appeared to accommodate the possibility that a declaration of emergency could interfere with democratic structures in affected states or parts of the federation, the court deliberately avoided making a definitive pronouncement on the constitutionality of the emergency rule imposed in Rivers State.

According to the summary read by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the Supreme Court also clarified that approval of a proclamation of emergency by the House of Representatives must be conducted through a formal division, with votes recorded by name, constituency and individual choice, and duly published.

The court noted that this procedure is mandatory.

In the Rivers case, however, the House of Representatives reportedly adopted a voice vote to approve the emergency proclamation, a process which Effiong noted was contrary to the Standing Orders of the House and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s stated requirements.

Based on the court’s reasoning, Effiong argued that the emergency rule in Rivers State was unlawful, as it was not endorsed by the National Assembly in accordance with the constitutionally prescribed procedure.

The Supreme Court further held that the 11 states that instituted the suit failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court ruled that its original jurisdiction could not be properly invoked because the emergency rule was not declared in any of the plaintiff states, nor did they obtain the consent of Rivers State before filing the suit. It also found that there was no dispute between the Federation and the plaintiff states.

As a result, the apex court struck out the suit.

Effiong emphasized that once a case is struck out, any comments made by the court do not carry the binding force of a substantive decision delivered by a court with proper jurisdiction. He added that the Supreme Court only made limited observations on the merits of the matter due to its grave constitutional importance.

The clarification has renewed debate over the legality of the Rivers State emergency declaration and the proper constitutional process for such actions.