The Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has dismissed claims that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu could rule Nigeria with the military following a recent Supreme Court verdict on Rivers State, describing the assertion as false, misleading, and dangerous to democracy.
In a statement issued on Wednesday by the party’s spokesman, Seye Oladejo, the Lagos APC reacted to comments credited to Mr. Okonkwo, who allegedly suggested that the court’s ruling had paved the way for military-style governance. The party said such claims misrepresented the nature of judicial authority in a constitutional democracy.
Oladejo stressed that a Supreme Court judgment represents the highest expression of constitutional authority and should not be confused with executive action or military intervention. According to him, the verdict did not suspend democracy in Rivers State but amounted to a lawful interpretation of the Constitution, which remains binding on all parties regardless of political interests.
The Lagos APC further rejected insinuations that President Tinubu harbours extra-constitutional ambitions, noting that his democratic credentials are well established. The statement recalled the president’s long-standing opposition to military rule and his role in Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle, describing suggestions of military proxy governance as “absurd and insulting.”
The party accused opposition figures of attempting to delegitimise the judiciary whenever court decisions do not align with their political expectations. It warned that such rhetoric, which portrays unfavourable judgments as signs of dictatorship, undermines public confidence in democratic institutions and poses a threat to national stability.
Oladejo said Nigeria remains firmly under civilian democratic rule, with the military operating strictly under constitutional control. He added that no action or policy under the Tinubu administration suggests any deviation from democratic governance or the separation of powers.
The Lagos APC called on Nigerians to reject what it described as inflammatory and anti-democratic commentary, urging political actors to respect the rule of law and the authority of the courts. The party maintained that Supreme Court judgments are instruments of justice that strengthen democracy, not tools of tyranny.
