|By Chinwendu Nwani
The International Human Rights Commission (IHRC), Nigeria Chapter, has cautioned that emergency powers granted to the President must not be deployed to override the mandate freely given to elected officials by the people.
The Country Director of IHRC, Amb. Abdullahi Bakoji Adamu, issued the warning while reacting to the recent Supreme Court judgment affirming the President’s authority to declare a state of emergency and remove elected officials.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with DAILY POST, Bakoji said the ruling, while constitutionally grounded, demands restraint, caution, and strong safeguards to prevent abuse.
He acknowledged that emergency powers are recognised in constitutional democracies and are designed to enable swift responses to grave situations such as insecurity, breakdown of public order, or national emergencies.
“There is no doubt that emergency powers exist within constitutional systems to help governments act decisively in exceptional circumstances,” he said, noting that the judgment could be seen as strengthening the executive’s capacity to maintain stability during crises.
However, Bakoji warned that democracy extends beyond executive decisiveness and must be anchored on the rule of law and respect for the electorate’s will.
He described the removal of elected officials through emergency proclamation as deeply concerning, stressing that such actions strike at the heart of democratic legitimacy.
“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 said.
The human rights advocate further warned that emergency rule inherently concentrates power in the executive and could weaken democratic institutions if left unchecked.
“A core principle of constitutional democracy is separation of powers,” Bakoji said. “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.”
He noted that historical experiences across democracies show that broad emergency powers can be abused when they are poorly regulated and weakly monitored.
According to him, the real issue is not the existence of emergency powers, but the safeguards governing their application.
“Emergency measures must be proportionate, time-bound, and subject to effective legislative and judicial oversight. They must never become a substitute for constitutional processes or democratic governance,” he stated.
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court ruling provides clarity on executive authority during emergencies, Bakoji said it also places a heavy responsibility on all arms of government to ensure such powers are exercised strictly within constitutional limits.
He warned that without adequate safeguards, the judgment could shrink democratic space and erode public confidence in democratic institutions.
Bakoji concluded that the strength of Nigeria’s democracy would ultimately be measured by how constitutional values are protected during periods of crisis.
“Our democracy will be judged by how we act in moments of difficulty. Emergency powers must remain exceptional, accountable, and firmly focused on the public interest, without undermining the foundations of democracy,” he said.
