Supreme Court Did Not Endorse Rivers Emergency Rule — Lawyer Clarifies Judgment
TEC News |Abuja| 16th December,2025
A constitutional lawyer, Confidence Aribibia, has clarified widespread public misunderstanding surrounding a recent judgment of the , insisting that the Court did not approve the emergency rule declared in , contrary to popular social media narratives.
In a detailed legal explanation circulated on Monday, Aribibia explained that many headlines misrepresented the Supreme Court’s decision in , giving the false impression that the apex court validated the Rivers emergency proclamation.
According to him, the Court was careful not to expressly endorse the emergency rule. Rather, it made general observations on the constitutional possibility that, in extreme situations, a state of emergency could affect democratic structures. He stressed that these remarks were theoretical and should not be interpreted as approval of the Rivers situation.
“The Supreme Court spoke about possibility, not approval,” Aribibia noted, adding that the judgment focused more on constitutional procedure, jurisdiction, and limits of power.
A major highlight of the judgment, he said, was the Court’s emphasis on the mandatory role of the in approving any proclamation of a state of emergency. The Court made it clear that such approval must strictly comply with legislative procedure and is not a mere formality.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held that approval in the must be done by division rather than voice vote, with votes properly recorded, members’ names and constituencies disclosed, and voting outcomes capable of verification and publication.
Aribibia pointed out that, in the case of Rivers State, approval in the House of Representatives was reportedly conducted by voice vote, a method he said does not comply with the Standing Orders of the House nor meet the constitutional standard emphasized by the Court.
“This is why many lawyers who have carefully studied the judgment believe that the Rivers emergency proclamation did not pass through the constitutionally required approval process,” he said.
On why the Supreme Court did not invalidate the emergency rule outright, Aribibia explained that the issue was one of jurisdiction. The Court found that Adamawa State and the other states that filed the suit were not directly affected by the emergency rule and did not obtain Rivers State’s consent to sue on its behalf. Consequently, the Court held that there was no real dispute between the parties and struck out the case for lack of jurisdiction.
He explained that when a case is struck out on jurisdictional grounds, the Court is essentially saying it should not have been invited to hear the matter in the first place. As such, any comments made on the substance of the emergency rule, while persuasive, are not binding determinations.
Aribibia concluded that many constitutional questions surrounding the Rivers emergency rule remain unresolved and unendorsed, stressing that the judgment serves as a reminder that due process is central to constitutional governance.
“In constitutional law,” he said, “how something is done can be just as important as why it is done.”
TEC News reports that the explanation has continued to generate debate among legal practitioners and the general public, as Nigerians await further judicial clarification on the constitutional limits of emergency powers.
Adverts
Data and others
Higher Education
Media Coverage
Employment Opportunities
