Judiciary Under Military, Civilian Rule: From ouster clauses to constitutional checks
This article examines the evolution of the Nigerian judiciary from the military era to the current constitutional democracy. It highlights how military decrees previously restricted judicial power and how landmark cases shaped the court's current authority.
Why it matters
Understanding the historical struggle for judicial independence is essential for analyzing the stability and rule of law in emerging democracies.
Layer 1 By Henry Ojelu, Assistant Judicial Editor
Nigeria’s judiciary has undergone profound changes since independence, moving from an institution operating under successive military governments and restrictive decrees to a constitutional arm of government with broader powers of judicial review under the Fourth Republic.
The contrast is particularly evident in the judiciary’s relationship with executive power, access to justice, judicial independence and the determination of political disputes.
Under military rule, the regular courts remained in existence, but their powers were frequently curtailed by military decrees. The courts could interpret existing laws, but their ability to question military authority was limited whenever a decree expressly ousted their jurisdiction.
One of the defining cases was Lakanmi v Attorney-General of Western State, decided by the Supreme Court in 1970.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in