Enrique Petracchi, former Chief Justice of Argentina, once observed: “All judges are politicians whether they know it or not.” In Nigeria, this insight resonates deeply, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding presidential emergency powers.

Odinkalu argues that judicial power in Nigeria is inherently political, not merely institutional. While judges exercise jurisdiction over cases, the functional deployment of judicial power—how courts exercise discretion—often intersects with politics.

On 15 December 2025, the Supreme Court weighed in on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s emergency proclamation in Rivers State (18 March 2025), which suspended the governor and state assembly for six months. Eleven PDP governors challenged the constitutionality of the proclamation, invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Yet the court delayed adjudication until after the emergency had expired, by which time political allegiances had shifted dramatically.

The court issued a 14-page unsigned media summary of the judgment, describing the majority’s position as a “discussion” rather than a formal decision. Key observations from Odinkalu include:

1. Jurisdiction Declined: The court, in four pages, dismissed the case, claiming plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a justiciable dispute.
2. Presidential Power Framed: The remaining pages, styled as a “discussion,” effectively legitimized the president’s authority to suspend elected state officials under emergency rule.
3. Emergency Powers Doctrine Invented: The court introduced the idea of “temporary expansion of federal powers,” absent from the Constitution.
4. Procedural Compliance Validated: A voice vote in the National Assembly was deemed sufficient to meet the two-thirds majority requirement for emergency approval.
5. Constraints Acknowledged but Weak: The court noted emergency measures must be temporary, corrective, and proportionate, yet did not prevent the president’s suspension of elected officials during the emergency.

Odinkalu emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s approach—framing extraordinary expansion of executive power as a “discussion”—is politically charged, wilful, and unprecedented. One Justice dissented from the expansive reading of presidential power, but his dissent was not summarized for public consumption.

The decision, Odinkalu concludes, signals a long-term challenge for governance in Nigeria, as it blurs the lines between constitutional interpretation, judicial restraint, and political calculation.