Nigeria’s Judiciary: From Military Ouster Clauses to Constitutional Checks

Nigeria’s judiciary has undergone major changes since independence, evolving from an institution whose powers were frequently constrained by military decrees to a constitutionally protected arm of government with a wider role in reviewing executive and legislative actions.

The contrast is particularly clear in the judiciary’s relationship with executive power, judicial independence, access to justice and the resolution of political disputes.

During military rule, regular courts continued to operate, but military decrees could restrict their jurisdiction and prevent them from questioning certain government actions.

A defining case was Lakanmi v Attorney-General of Western State, decided by the Supreme Court in 1970. The court challenged the military government’s attempt to confiscate property belonging to individuals accused of corrupt enrichment and held that the courts could examine the validity of the measure.

The military government responded with Decree No. 28 of 1970, formally known as the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Decree. The measure effectively nullified the impact of the judgment and asserted the supremacy of military decrees.

The case became an important illustration of the limits placed on judicial authority under military rule.

Those restrictions became more extensive during later military regimes. Decree No. 2 of 1984, the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree, provided for detention without trial, while Decree No. 12 of 1984 restricted the jurisdiction of regular courts over certain acts of the Federal Military Government.

Military administrations also established special tribunals to deal with matters including coup plotting, corruption and armed robbery. In several instances, their decisions were insulated from review by the regular courts.

By the final years of military rule, the judiciary was also facing challenges involving inadequate funding, delays, staffing and allegations of misconduct.

The return to constitutional government

The return to democratic rule on May 29, 1999, changed the constitutional environment in which Nigerian courts operated.

The 1999 Constitution restored the framework of separation of powers and provided for the judiciary as an independent arm of government. It also established the National Judicial Council (NJC) under Section 153, giving the body responsibilities relating to the appointment and discipline of judicial officers.

The NJC describes judicial independence as essential to impartial justice and states that judges should be subject only to the law when performing their judicial functions.

Under the Fourth Republic, courts have consequently become central to disputes involving elected governments, political parties and public institutions.

Unlike the military era, when decrees could expressly oust the jurisdiction of courts, the constitutional system allows citizens, governments and political parties to challenge executive and legislative actions through litigation, subject to the limits established by the Constitution and other laws.

The Supreme Court has consequently remained a major constitutional arbiter. It hears appeals in civil, criminal and constitutional matters and has original jurisdiction in disputes between the Federation and states.

Electoral disputes and political litigation

Electoral litigation has become one of the most prominent areas of judicial activity since 1999.

Presidential, governorship, National Assembly and state assembly elections have generated extensive litigation over issues including nominations, candidate qualifications, electoral procedures and election results.

The expanded role has also brought institutional pressures, including concerns over delays and the proliferation of politically sensitive cases.

The 2024 Kano Emirate dispute offered a prominent example of the difficulties created by competing court orders. The NJC said conflicting judgments had emerged from the Federal High Court and Kano State High Court and summoned the heads of both courts for an emergency meeting. The Council described the development as “very disturbing.”

The problem of conflicting orders is not limited to the Kano dispute. In 2022, the NJC issued policy directions concerning political and election-related cases after expressing concern about multiple suits filed in courts of coordinate jurisdiction and conflicting orders arising from such litigation.

Judicial accountability

The democratic era has also produced a more formal framework for holding judicial officers accountable.

The NJC considers petitions against judges and can impose sanctions where misconduct is established. In November 2024, for example, the Council sanctioned five serving judicial officers, including suspending Rivers State High Court Justice G.C. Aguma for one year without pay and placing him on a two-year watch list. It also recommended two heads of court for compulsory retirement.

The Council has continued disciplinary proceedings in subsequent years. In 2025 and 2026, the NJC considered petitions and investigation reports involving judicial officers, with sanctions imposed in cases where misconduct was established.

The Council has also intervened in disputes involving the administration of state judiciaries. In April 2025, for instance, it directed the Imo State Government to reverse the appointment of an acting Chief Judge and ordered relevant judicial officials to explain their roles in the process.

An unfinished journey

Despite the stronger constitutional position of the judiciary under civilian rule, judicial independence remains an ongoing institutional issue.

The challenges have shifted from the direct subordination of courts to military decrees to questions involving funding, administrative autonomy, delays, conflicting judgments, judicial conduct and public confidence.

The history of Nigeria’s judiciary since independence is therefore more than a simple transition from military suppression to democratic freedom. It is a continuing story of an institution negotiating the limits of its constitutional authority while trying to deliver justice that is independent, timely, consistent and accessible.

The courts today possess substantially greater constitutional protection and authority than they did under military rule. But the effectiveness of that protection ultimately depends not only on constitutional provisions, but also on respect for judicial independence, adequate resources, accountability and public confidence in the justice system.