The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has strongly criticised a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirms the President’s authority to suspend elected state governors and state assemblies during a declared state of emergency. The party described the judgment as a dangerous development that concentrates excessive power in the hands of the President and poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s federal structure and democratic system.
In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC warned that although the ruling appears to be academic in form, its practical implications could fundamentally alter the balance of power within the Nigerian federation. According to the party, the decision effectively creates what it termed a “constitutional tyrant” by expanding presidential powers beyond acceptable democratic limits.
The party expressed deep concern that the judgment undermines the principle of federalism by placing state governments at the mercy of the federal executive. It argued that the ruling opens the door for abuse, allowing a President to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of states under the guise of restoring security.
In its detailed response, the ADC noted that the Supreme Court’s position grants the President wide discretion to determine the measures deemed necessary to re-establish peace and order following the declaration of a state of emergency. This, the party argued, means the President could adopt “extraordinary measures” based solely on personal judgment, without adequate institutional restraint.
The ADC warned that such latitude could be exploited to target governors or state assemblies perceived as politically unfriendly. According to the party, a contrived or exaggerated security crisis could be used as justification to suspend democratically elected state officials, effectively placing state governance under federal control. While the court acknowledged that no tier of government is constitutionally superior to another, the ADC argued that the practical effect of the ruling contradicts this principle by granting the President overwhelming influence over state political affairs.
The party further questioned the safeguards cited by the Supreme Court as protections against potential abuse of presidential power. These safeguards include proportionality, legislative oversight, and judicial review. The ADC argued that these checks are largely ineffective under current political realities.
According to the statement, proportionality cannot serve as a reliable safeguard when a President is determined to retain power at all costs. The ADC also criticised the National Assembly, alleging that it has failed in its oversight role and has become overly aligned with the executive, thereby rendering legislative checks meaningless. On judicial review, the party contended that the Supreme Court’s own ruling demonstrates the limitations of relying on the judiciary to restrain executive overreach, particularly when courts focus strictly on legal technicalities rather than the broader democratic intent of the Constitution.
The ADC accused the Supreme Court of unintentionally facilitating what it described as “constitutional tyranny”—a form of governance in which leaders use legal instruments and constitutional loopholes to amass and entrench unchecked authority. The party stressed that such authoritarianism does not always emerge through overt actions such as military coups but often develops gradually through the steady weakening of democratic institutions and norms.
Concluding its statement, the ADC cautioned Nigerians to remain vigilant, warning that recent developments indicate a troubling erosion of institutional independence. The party lamented what it described as the inability of both the legislature and the judiciary to effectively serve as bulwarks against the growing concentration of power in the executive, urging citizens to recognise and resist what it sees as a dangerous slide away from democratic governance.
0 Comments