Rivers: Supreme Court ruling means Tinubu can suspend all 36 governors at once – Okonkwo

Kenneth Okonkwo, a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and a legal practitioner, has criticised the Supreme Court judgment that upheld President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the suspension of elected officials.

In a six-to-one decision delivered on Monday, the apex court ruled that the President has the constitutional authority to declare a state of emergency to avert a breakdown of law and order. The court further held that elected officials could be suspended during such a period, provided the suspension is for a limited time.

The ruling arose from a suit filed by states governed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which challenged the legality of the emergency declaration in Rivers State. Following the directive, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly were suspended for six months.

Speaking on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily on Tuesday, Okonkwo faulted both the substance of the judgment and the manner in which it was delivered. While acknowledging that the Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency, he argued that such powers do not extend to suspending elected officials.

“What this judgment means is that the President can now suspend all 36 governors at the same time. He can declare a nationwide state of emergency and rule Nigeria with the military for a limited period,” Okonkwo said.

He also criticised the court for striking out the suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, yet proceeding to make pronouncements on substantive issues. According to him, once a court declares it lacks jurisdiction, any further comments amount to mere opinions and should not be made.

“They said they did not have jurisdiction, yet they went ahead to express opinions on the matter. If I were in their position, I would have simply declined jurisdiction without making further comments. As the apex court, they had that right, rather than throwing the country into confusion,” he added.

Okonkwo warned that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy by encouraging executive overreach. He expressed concern about the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law, stating that such judgments undermine public confidence in the justice system.

However, he praised the lone dissenting justice in the case, saying he aligned fully with that position. “Thank God there was one dissenting voice among the Supreme Court justices, and I have the right to align myself with him,” he said.

The judgment has continued to generate debate among legal and political analysts, with many expressing concerns that it could alter the balance of power between the executive and elected state officials, while raising broader questions about the judiciary’s responsibility in protecting democratic governance.