Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, has clarified that the Supreme Court did not endorse the dissolution of democratic structures during emergency rule in any part of Nigeria, countering misleading media reports.

In a statement on Monday, Falana referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling delivered on December 15, 2025, in Attorney-General of Adamawa State & 19 Ors v Attorney-General of the Federation (Suit No SC/CV/329/2025).

Falana explained that the Supreme Court dismissed the suit “for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked the legal authority to maintain the action.” Despite declining jurisdiction, the apex court examined the merits of the case, which Falana said has been misinterpreted by some media outlets.

“Contrary to misleading reports, the Supreme Court did not approve the dissolution of democratic structures during emergency rule in any state of the Federation,” Falana emphasized.

He highlighted the key judgment by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, which rejected the notion that the President has the constitutional authority to dissolve elected state institutions under emergency rule. Justice Idris clarified that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution does not empower the President to temporarily suspend or displace executive or legislative bodies at the state level.

The judgment stressed the constitutional division of powers, stating:

“By virtue of Sections 4–7 of the Constitution, governmental powers are divided among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, and distributed across the Federal, State, and Local Government tiers. No arm or tier of government is constitutionally superior to another, and none may usurp the powers expressly vested in another.”

Justice Idris further noted that, unlike the constitutions of India and Pakistan, the Nigerian Constitution deliberately omits presidential powers to assume or dissolve state institutions, underscoring Nigeria’s commitment to federalism and state autonomy.

Falana noted that this clarification was necessary due to reports claiming that the Supreme Court had validated the suspension or dissolution of democratic institutions during emergency rule—a claim not supported by the judgment.

He warned that misrepresenting such landmark rulings could mislead the public and weaken constitutional governance, while reaffirming that the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the autonomy of states and the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.