Human rights advocate and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Femi Falana, has clarified that the Supreme Court did not at any point approve the dismantling or suspension of democratic institutions in any part of the country under a declaration of emergency rule. He said reports suggesting otherwise were a misreading of the apex court’s recent judgment.

Falana made this known while reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision delivered on December 15, 2025, in the case of Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Others v Attorney-General of the Federation. He explained that although the court dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to file it, the justices still went ahead to address the substantive constitutional questions raised.

According to Falana, some media reports wrongly interpreted the ruling as an endorsement of the suspension or dissolution of elected state governments during emergency rule. He stressed that such an interpretation is misleading and does not reflect the true position of the court.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the Supreme Court clearly stated that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not confer on the President the authority to dissolve or suspend the executive or legislative arms of government at the state level during an emergency. The court reaffirmed that the Constitution strictly separates powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary, while also distributing authority across the federal, state and local government tiers.

Justice Idris further noted that no arm or level of government is constitutionally superior to another or permitted to usurp powers assigned elsewhere. The court also pointed out that, unlike constitutions in countries such as India and Pakistan, Nigeria’s Constitution deliberately avoids granting the President powers to take over state governments during emergencies, underscoring the country’s commitment to federalism.

Falana cautioned journalists and the public against distorting court rulings, warning that inaccurate reporting could weaken constitutional governance and misinform citizens about the law.