THE Supreme Court, on Monday, ruled on the Rivers State emergency rule 9 months after the case was filed by 11 governors of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), contradicting its earlier position on how a duly elected governor could be removed.

In a split decision of six-to-one, Nigeria’s highest court held that the president could suspend elected officials within a limited period of time. In the lead majority judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to adopt extraordinary measures to restore normalcy where a state of emergency had been declared.

The provision did not specify the exact nature of those extraordinary measures, but it subsequently vested the president with discretion on how to act in such circumstances.

The PDP had challenged the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent removal of Governor Sim Fubara by President Bola Tinubu. The Supreme Court had reserved judgment in the matter in October.

The plaintiffs were the Attorneys-General of PDP-controlled states, while the defendants were the Federal Government and the National Assembly.

READ ALSO: Supreme Court faces backlash over six-month delay of Rivers emergency case

The plaintiffs had sought to know “whether, upon a proper construction and interpretation of Sections 1(2), 5(2), 176, 180, 188, and 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can lawfully suspend, or in any manner whatsoever interfere with, the offices of a Governor and the Deputy Governor of any of the 36 component States of the Federation and replace them with his unelected nominee as a Sole Administrator, under the guise of, or pursuant to, a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in any of the Plaintiffs’ States.”

But in a dissenting or minority judgment, Justice Obande Ogbuinya opined that the PDP governors’ suit succeeded in part, arguing that the president could declare a state of emergency but did not have the power to suspend elected representatives.

Supreme Court contradicts self

The Supreme Court has, however, contradicted its earlier judgment in 2008. In 2006, Vice President Atiku Abubakar left the PDP for the Action Congress (AC). President Olusegun Obasanjo consequently filed a case against his deputy, arguing that he had lost his seat as the nation’s number two man for defecting from his party.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, said there were only four situations in which elected officials could be removed from office. The apex court mentioned the following condictions: resignation, death, impeachment and recall. The court held that defecting from one political party to another was not a viable reason for removing elected officials from office.

However, in its Monday ruling, the same court affirmed that President Tinubu could remove an elected governor, even though declaration of state of emergency was not among the 4 options it had given for removing officials 17 years ago.

“The Supreme Court has contradicted itself in that ruling,” said a political analyst, Mr Mahmud Jega. “How can you say that nobody can remove an elected official in 2008 and reverse yourself in 2025,” Mr Jega said on Arise TV on Tuesday.

A lawyer, Mr Dennic Agbusi, lamanted that it took the nation’s Supreme Court 9 months to give this judgment even when it was nearly useless for Rivers State natives.

“Of what use is this judgment to the people of Rivers State? The emergency rule has come and passed. The governor has moved on and even changed his political party to the president’s party. Most of the PDP governors who instituted the case have left the party for the All Progressives Congress (APC). So, who is the judgment meant to serve in the first place?” he asked.

READ ALSO: Nigerians accuse court judges of being puppets in hands of politicians

Three months ago, the Supreme Court had faced backlash for delaying to hear the Rivers State emergency case six months after it was filed. Netizens said the situation showed the nation’s judiciary was being manipulated by politicians. Read the story here.