Court ruling: Lawyer warns against power abuse

Amb. Abdullahi Bakoji Adamu, Country Director of the International Human Rights Commission (IHRC), Nigeria Chapter, has warned that emergency powers granted to the President must not be used to override the mandate freely given to elected officials by the people.

Bakoji reacted to the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the President’s authority to proclaim a state of emergency and remove elected officials, describing the judgment as one that requires caution and strong constitutional safeguards.

He acknowledged that emergency powers exist in constitutional democracies and are meant to help governments respond swiftly to serious threats such as insecurity, breakdown of public order, or national emergencies.

“There is no doubt that emergency powers are recognised within constitutional systems. They exist to enable government to respond swiftly and effectively to exceptional situations such as serious security threats, breakdown of public order, or national emergencies. From this standpoint, the Court’s ruling may be seen as strengthening the executive’s capacity to maintain stability in times of crisis.

However, the human rights advocate stressed that democracy is not only about decisive action by the executive but also about respect for the rule of law and the will of the electorate.

MESSAGE us @ https://Wa.me/+2348072633727 / 08072633727 for business & brand promotion/relationship/partnership, Advert, PR, Publicity, Awareness, Interviews, Feature Stories, Press Release/Statement and any task related to Media…

“The removal of duly elected officials through emergency proclamation raises serious concerns,” Bakoji Adamu said. “Elected leaders derive their authority from the people, and any action that suspends or removes that mandate must be treated with extreme caution and backed by strong legal justification.”

He warned that emergency rule naturally concentrates power in the hands of the executive and could weaken democratic institutions if not properly checked.
“A core principle of constitutional democracy is separation of powers,” he explained. 

“Emergency powers, by their nature, place enormous authority in the executive. Without clear limits on duration, scope, and oversight, there is a real risk of undermining the legislature and reducing judicial scrutiny.”

According to him, history has shown that broad emergency powers can be abused if they are not clearly regulated and closely monitored.

“In my view, the central issue is not the existence of emergency powers, but the safeguards that accompany their use. Emergency measures should be proportionate, time-bound, and subject to effective legislative and judicial oversight. They must not become a substitute for constitutional processes or democratic governance.

https://youtube.com/@dehonourables?si=ZJwWbyQJAybS5htG

“While the ruling may offer clarity on executive authority during emergencies, it also places a responsibility on all arms of government to ensure that such powers are exercised responsibly and in strict accordance with constitutional principles. 

“Without adequate safeguards, the ruling risks weakening constitutional democracy by narrowing democratic space and undermining public confidence in democratic institutions.”
He concluded by stressing that the true test of democracy is how constitutional values are protected during difficult times.

“Ultimately, our democracy will be judged by how we act in moments of crisis. Emergency powers must remain exceptional, accountable, and always focused on the public interest, without undermining the foundations of democracy.”