NEARLY two months after President Bola Tinubu controversially declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the House of Assembly, the Supreme Court has yet to act decisively. Equally disturbing is the delay by the Attorney-General of the Federation in responding to a constitutional challenge brought by 11 state governors in the case. This case, with far-reaching implications for democracy and federalism, deserves prompt attention.

Under Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution, an emergency may only be declared under exceptional conditions of war, imminent invasion, or a breakdown of public order and safety. None of these applied in Rivers at the time of Tinubu’s declaration on March 18.

Yet, two months have passed without judicial clarity on the legality of suspending elected officials in a functioning democracy.

On April 9, 11 People’s Democratic Party governors filed a suit at the Supreme Court, challenging what they described as an unconstitutional overreach by the President. Instead of treating the matter with urgency, the AGF waited until May 9 to file a preliminary objection, questioning the governors’ locus standi and dismissing the suit as “academic and speculative”. Such a delay in a matter of national significance is bad.

The AGF, as the chief law officer of the federation, owes allegiance mainly to the Constitution and the Nigerian people before the President. His delayed response could undermine public confidence in governance.

The Supreme Court, too, has failed in its duty of prompt adjudication. With the six-month constitutional window for emergency rule, the Court’s silence is inexplicable. A constitutional crisis is unfolding in real-time, yet the country’s highest court remains detached, even though such matters require accelerated hearing.

This inaction is an uncomfortable moment in Nigeria. Indeed, the suit before the Court is not just about Rivers State; it concerns the sanctity of elections, the rule of law, and the integrity of Nigeria’s federal structure.

This matter has an ugly precedent. The sacking of governors and state lawmakers without due process has haunted Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, largely because past abuses were not resolved judicially.

If the Supreme Court fails to act now, it risks entrenching a dangerous norm where Presidents, under flimsy pretexts, can sweep away elected governments without consequences. Democracy cannot function that way.

In 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo suspended Governor Ayo Fayose under a dubious emergency rule in Ekiti State.

At the time, human rights advocate Clement Nwankwo warned, “What has happened in Ekiti is a sign of what might happen nationally… Once the rule of law fails, then clearly you can’t have democracy.” That warning has sadly become a reality in Rivers.

Even Obasanjo’s earlier declaration of emergency in Plateau State in 2004, which followed prolonged violence that claimed thousands of lives, faced public outcry when he refused to reinstate Governor Joshua Dariye.

In contrast, when President Goodluck Jonathan declared an emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States in 2013, he refrained from suspending elected officials, respecting constitutional boundaries. He also left their parliaments intact.

As former AGF Bello Adoke rightly noted in his memoir, ‘Burden of Service’, while earlier emergency laws permitted the removal of Premiers, the 1999 Constitution makes no such provision for suspending governors.

To do so now, without legal justification or court endorsement, is constitutionally contentious.

The Rivers’ emergency must be adjudicated before its six-month term lapses. A judgment after the fact would render the entire case moot, an academic exercise devoid of practical value, and a profound disservice to Nigeria’s democracy.