EXAMINE THE CONCEPT OF THE RULE OF LAW UNDER MILITARY

ADMINISTRATION IN NIGERIA FROM 1966-1999

Outline for Review
1. Introduction
 Overview of Nigeria’s political landscape from 1966-1999.
 Significance of the military regimes in shaping the nation’s legal and political
structures.
 Defining the rule of law and how it applies in the context of military administration.
2. Historical Background
 A review of the military coups of 1966 and their aftermath.
 A timeline of the major military regimes: Gowon (1966-1975), Murtala
Mohammed/Obasanjo (1975-1979), Buhari (1983-1985), Babangida (1985-1993),
Abacha (1993-1998), Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999).
 Impact of these coups on Nigeria's democratic process and governance.
3. Military Rule and the Rule of Law
 Defining the rule of law and examining how military regimes interpreted and
implemented it.
 Exploration of the principles of the rule of law under military rule (e.g., transparency,
accountability, judicial independence).
 Key instances where military regimes deviated from the rule of law.
4. Judicial Independence Under Military Rule
 The role of the judiciary during military regimes and the independence of the judicial
system.
 How military regimes interfered with the judiciary (e.g., sackings, appointment of
military-friendly judges).
 The role of military tribunals and the concept of military justice.
5. Constitutional Development and Decrees
 Review of the military’s approach to constitutional changes and the use of decrees.
 How the military suspended and amended Nigeria’s constitutions.
 Constitutional developments in the post-military era leading to the 1999 civilian rule.
6. Human Rights Abuses
 Overview of major human rights abuses during military rule (e.g., summary
executions, curfews, suppression of opposition).
 International and domestic responses to these human rights violations.
  Effects on the rule of law and Nigeria’s image globally.
7. The Economic and Social Impact of Military Rule
 Examination of how military rule affected Nigeria’s economy, governance, and social
development.
 Challenges related to military mismanagement and corruption.
 The relationship between the military’s approach to governance and Nigeria’s political
instability.
8. The Transition to Civilian Rule in 1999
 The factors leading to the return of civilian rule after the death of General Abacha.
 How military rule finally gave way to civilian governance and the implications for the
rule of law.
9. Conclusion
 Summary of the role of military regimes in Nigeria’s political evolution.
 Analysis of the lasting effects of military rule on the rule of law in post-1999 Nigeria.
 Potential lessons for future governance and constitutional development.

Judicial Independence Under Military Rule

The military’s interference with the judiciary was a crucial factor in the erosion of the rule of
law. From the early years of military rule, the independence of the judiciary was
compromised as military leaders appointed loyal judges and removed those who were
perceived as hostile to their regime. For example, General Muhammadu Buhari’s regime
(1983-1985) dissolved the National Assembly and judiciary, citing their ineffectiveness in
upholding the law (Adetunji, 2022). Furthermore, military tribunals, often used to suppress
dissent, lacked transparency and fairness, denying many accused individuals the right to a fair
trial (Smith & Thomas, 2022). The period between 1966 and 1999 marked a significant phase
in Nigeria's political history, characterized by frequent military coups that overthrew civilian
governments. This paper examines the impact of these military administrations on the rule of
law, focusing on their influence on judicial independence, constitutional development, and
human rights. The military governments of Nigeria, through the suspension of the
constitution and the imposition of decrees, often undermined the fundamental principles of
democracy and the rule of law (Ola, 2023).
Between 1966 and 1999, Nigeria experienced a series of military regimes that profoundly
impacted the nation's governance and the application of the rule of law. During this period,
the military's approach to governance often undermined democratic principles and the rule of
law.
Military Regimes and Governance
The military's involvement in Nigerian politics began with the coup of January 15, 1966,
which overthrew the First Republic. Subsequent military regimes, including those led by
Generals Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Mohammed, Olusegun Obasanjo, Muhammadu Buhari,
Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha, and Abdulsalami Abubakar, maintained power through
force and decrees, often sidelining democratic institutions. These regimes justified their rule
as necessary for national stability and development.
The military’s involvement in Nigerian politics is a pivotal aspect of the country's modern
history, deeply influencing its political trajectory and governance structures. From the first
coup in 1966 to the return to democracy in 1999, Nigeria experienced numerous military
regimes, each with its own unique characteristics, challenges, and justifications for rule.
1. 1966 Coup and First Military Regime:
The first military coup, led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu on January 15, 1966, was
ostensibly a response to corruption and mismanagement in the First Republic. Although it
failed to establish stability, it resulted in the overthrow of Prime Minister Sir Abubakar
Tafawa Balewa's government. General Yakubu Gowon took control shortly after the coup,
which marked the beginning of military dominance in Nigerian politics. Gowon’s regime was
shaped by the civil war (1967–1970), and the military justified their rule as necessary to
preserve the unity of the country. After the war, Gowon promised a return to civilian rule by
1979, but failed to fulfill this promise, keeping the military in power.
2. Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo (1975–1985):
General Murtala Mohammed overthrew Gowon in a coup on July 29, 1975, citing corruption
and inefficiency in the government. His regime was marked by reforms aimed at purging the
civil service and introducing some democratizing measures, such as the creation of new states
and the initiation of a return to civilian rule. However, Mohammed's rule was short-lived—he
was assassinated in an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1976, and his deputy, General Olusegun
Obasanjo, took over. Obasanjo continued the reform agenda, pushing forward the transition
to a democratic government. Under his rule, Nigeria returned to civilian government in 1979
with the election of Shehu Shagari, but the country soon experienced another military
takeover.
3. Muhammadu Buhari (1983–1985):
In a coup on December 31, 1983, Major General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the civilian
government of Shehu Shagari, citing corruption and the economic decline of the nation.
Buhari's regime implemented strict policies, including the notorious War Against Indiscipline
(WAI), which sought to instill discipline in the populace. The regime, however, was also
criticized for its authoritarianism, with the military government curbing political freedoms,
suppressing dissent, and using harsh methods to maintain order. His rule ended in 1985 when
he was ousted in a coup led by General Ibrahim Babangida.
4. Ibrahim Babangida (1985–1993):
Babangida’s military rule marked a period of significant change, both politically and
economically. He presided over economic reforms and introduced a more technocratic
government, but his regime was also notorious for its instability. Babangida introduced
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) to address the country’s economic woes but these led
to widespread hardship. One of his most controversial decisions was the annulment of the
1993 presidential elections, which had been won by Moshood Abiola, a decision that plunged
the country into political crisis and ultimately led to his resignation in 1993.
5. Sani Abacha (1993–1998):
General Sani Abacha's regime, which began in 1993, was one of the most repressive periods
in Nigeria's history. Abacha consolidated power after the ouster of Babangida, suspended the
constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, and imprisoned key political leaders, including
the acclaimed winner of the 1993 elections, Moshood Abiola. Abacha's regime was marked
by widespread human rights abuses, arbitrary arrests, and the suppression of opposition
voices. Despite the regime’s brutality, it also saw some economic growth, largely due to high
oil prices. Abacha’s sudden death in 1998 led to the return of civilian governance.
6. Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998–1999):
Following Abacha’s death, General Abdulsalami Abubakar took over and oversaw the
transition back to civilian rule. Abubakar's regime is often viewed more favorably due to its
commitment to ending military rule and organizing the 1999 elections, which resulted in the
election of Olusegun Obasanjo as president, marking the return of democracy after nearly 16
years of military rule.
The Military's Justifications for Rule:
Throughout these regimes, the military justified their involvement in politics by framing
themselves as stabilizers, often citing national crises such as economic mismanagement,
corruption, and ethnic or regional tensions. The military portrayed their interventions as
necessary to maintain unity, security, and development in the face of a corrupt or ineffectual
civilian government. While the military promised to return power to civilian rule, they often
delayed transitions or extended their rule indefinitely.
Impact on Governance and Democracy:
The military regimes in Nigeria had profound implications for governance and democracy.
The prolonged periods of military rule entrenched authoritarianism, curtailed political
freedoms, and diminished the strength of democratic institutions. The military’s centralization
of power in the executive, lack of checks and balances, and use of decrees instead of
legislation undermined the rule of law. The military’s governance style fostered a culture of
impunity, corruption, and human rights abuses that still haunts Nigerian politics today.
On the positive side, military regimes introduced some key infrastructural projects, and in
some cases, Nigeria experienced brief periods of relative stability and economic growth.
However, these achievements were often overshadowed by the authoritarian nature of
military rule and the failure to nurture democratic processes.
In sum, the history of military regimes in Nigeria is a tale of prolonged authoritarianism that
shaped the country's political landscape, sowing distrust in the political process and fostering
a desire for democratic governance. Although civilian rule was eventually restored in 1999,
the legacy of military rule continues to influence the country’s political culture.

Impact on the Rule of Law

Under military rule, the concept of the rule of law was frequently compromised. The military
often operated above the law, with leaders exercising unchecked power. The judiciary was
subordinated to executive authority, and fundamental human rights were routinely violated.
For instance, the military justice system, designed to maintain discipline within the armed
forces, was criticized for its lack of independence and transparency, raising concerns about its
compatibility with the rule of law. The impact of military rule on the rule of law is profound
and often negative, as it undermines the key principles of justice, fairness, and accountability.
Here are some additional points to consider:
1. Erosion of Legal Institutions: Under military rule, legal institutions, such as courts
and law enforcement agencies, often become mere extensions of the military regime
rather than independent bodies upholding the rule of law. Judges and legal officers
may be appointed based on loyalty rather than merit, leading to decisions that serve
the interests of the military rather than those of justice or the public.
 2. Impunity and Lack of Accountability: Military regimes often operate with a sense
of impunity, where leaders and military officers are not held accountable for their
actions. This lack of accountability fosters corruption and human rights abuses, as
those in power are not subject to the checks and balances that typically characterize
democratic systems.
3. Judicial Subordination: In many instances, the military subordinates the judiciary to
its own interests. Military rulers might directly interfere in legal proceedings,
influencing the outcome of trials, dismissing judges who oppose their views, or
appointing military officials to key legal positions. This significantly weakens the
independence of the judiciary, which is one of the cornerstones of the rule of law.
4. Abuse of Emergency Powers: Military regimes often invoke emergency powers that
grant them sweeping authority to detain individuals without trial, limit freedoms of
speech, assembly, and movement, and dissolve civil institutions. These powers, while
justified as necessary for national security, are frequently abused to stifle political
opposition, suppress dissent, and violate fundamental human rights.
5. Militarization of the Legal System: The military often imposes martial law or sets
up military tribunals to try civilians, which bypass regular courts. These tribunals lack
the procedural fairness and transparency of civilian courts and are typically biased in
favor of the military regime, further eroding trust in the legal system.
6. Human Rights Violations: Under military rule, human rights violations, such as
unlawful detention, torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced disappearances, are
common. The military justice system may either fail to investigate these crimes or
actively cover them up. This widespread disregard for human rights not only violates
national and international law but also weakens the overall rule of law in the society.
7. Legal Reforms Under Military Rule: While military regimes often justify their
power by claiming the need for legal or constitutional reforms, these reforms are
typically designed to entrench the military's authority rather than promote justice. In
many cases, military leaders will amend the constitution or laws to legitimize their
hold on power, often sidelining democratic principles and rights.
In summary, the impact of military rule on the rule of law is one of systemic corruption,
repression, and a diminished capacity for justice. The military often disrupts the natural
functioning of legal institutions, fosters a climate of impunity, and compromises the
protection of human rights, which undermines the very concept of the rule of law in society.
the impact of military rule on the rule of law, here are additional critical aspects to consider:
1. Concentration of Power and Absence of Checks and Balances
In military rule, power is often concentrated in the hands of a few military leaders or a single
individual, effectively bypassing the system of checks and balances that is foundational to
democratic governance. In democratic systems, the legislative, executive, and judiciary
branches act as checks on each other's power, ensuring accountability. Under military rule,
however, there is typically little to no oversight or accountability, as the military controls all
major political and legal functions. As a result, the military's actions are rarely scrutinized,
leading to abuses of power.
Constitutional Development and Decrees
Military regimes in Nigeria suspended the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, replacing them with
decrees that concentrated power in the hands of the military leadership. The 1979
Constitution, which was crafted under General Obasanjo’s military government, was
abrogated by subsequent military leaders, and a new constitution was rarely given the
opportunity to mature before being suspended again (Jibril, 2024). The frequent alteration of
constitutions weakened public trust in the legal system and delayed the transition to
democratic governance.
Human Rights Abuses
Military regimes in Nigeria were notorious for their disregard for human rights, with
widespread reports of torture, executions, and forced disappearances. The regime of General
Sani Abacha (1993-1998) was particularly infamous for its violent suppression of political
opposition. The brutal crackdown on activists, such as the execution of the Ogoni Nine,
demonstrated the military’s disregard for international human rights standards (Adeyemo,
2023). These abuses severely undermined the rule of law, as legal protections were often
violated without recourse for victims.
The military regimes in Nigeria from 1966 to 1999 left a lasting impact on the rule of law,
eroding judicial independence, undermining constitutional processes, and fostering an
environment of human rights abuses. Despite these challenges, the transition to civilian rule
in 1999 signified a hopeful return to democracy and legal reform. However, the legacy of
military rule continues to shape Nigeria’s political landscape, reminding future leaders of the
importance of upholding the principles of the rule of law (Olayinka, 2024).
2. Deterioration of Civil Liberties and Political Rights
Military regimes frequently suppress civil liberties, including freedoms of expression,
assembly, and association. Political dissent is often met with force, and opposition parties or
movements are either banned or heavily restricted. The legal system may be manipulated to
serve the interests of the regime, punishing those who challenge or criticize the military’s
authority. Under these circumstances, citizens are often left without meaningful recourse
through the courts, further eroding the rule of law.
 Example: The use of arbitrary detention without trial, restrictions on media, and
censorship of opposing viewpoints can limit people's ability to challenge injustices,
resulting in an environment where rule of law becomes a distant and irrelevant
concept.
3. Military as the Ultimate Arbiter
In a militarized state, the military becomes the ultimate arbiter of legality and justice. Military
tribunals or courts may be set up to handle legal matters, which are not bound by the same
standards of due process, fairness, or transparency as civilian courts. These tribunals are often
under the control of military officers with vested interests in maintaining the status quo and
silencing opposition. As a result, decisions made by these tribunals can lack legitimacy in the
eyes of the public, and often violate basic human rights.
 Example: In some cases, civilians are tried in military courts, bypassing their
constitutional right to a trial by their peers. These courts may not follow proper legal
procedures and can be used to quickly suppress political opposition or social
movements.
4. Impairment of Legal and Constitutional Frameworks
The rule of law relies heavily on a strong, independent legal framework, and a functioning
constitution. Military regimes often undermine these frameworks by suspending or amending
constitutions to suit their own interests. In many cases, they either abrogate the constitution
entirely or amend it in ways that legitimize their rule while minimizing the rights and
freedoms of the population. Military leaders may also rule by decree, effectively making their
decisions immune to legal challenge.
 Example: Following a coup, military rulers may issue decrees that override existing
laws, suspend constitutional rights, or dissolve elected legislative bodies, which
removes any legal or constitutional checks on their power.
5. Use of State Resources to Maintain Control
Military regimes often control the state apparatus, including the police, military, and
intelligence agencies. These institutions are sometimes used not to uphold the rule of law, but
rather to reinforce the power of the regime. In many cases, the military uses force to crush
political movements or uprisings, taking actions that violate the law to maintain its grip on
power. The ability to use state resources in such a manner discourages independent judicial
rulings and stifles any dissent against military rule.
6. Impediment to Democratic Transition
Military rule often creates a vicious cycle that prevents the transition to democracy. By
concentrating power in the military, the regime obstructs efforts to reestablish the rule of law
and constitutional governance. Furthermore, when the military controls all branches of
government, it can be very difficult for civilian leaders to reclaim authority and restore
democratic principles. Even when a transition is initiated, the military may retain significant
control behind the scenes, ensuring that the transition is slow or incomplete.
 Example: In many instances, military juntas have promised to restore civilian rule but
have either delayed elections indefinitely or engineered a political environment in
which they maintain power under the guise of transitional governance.
7. Weakening of Legal Education and Legal Professionals
Under military rule, the legal community often faces significant repression, including
intimidation or even imprisonment for speaking out against the government. Lawyers, judges,
and legal scholars may find themselves in a perilous position if they challenge military rule or
its actions. As a result, the legal profession becomes politicized, and the practice of law no
longer serves to protect the rights of citizens but rather to protect the military regime.
 Example: Lawyers who represent political prisoners or human rights activists under
military rule are often targeted for harassment, disbarred, or imprisoned, which
creates a chilling effect on the broader legal community.
8. Humanitarian Impact on Civil Society
Beyond the legal and institutional implications, military rule has a direct humanitarian
impact. With the breakdown of legal protections, ordinary citizens often face violence,
discrimination, and economic hardship. In many cases, military regimes deprive citizens of
access to fair trials, education, health care, and other basic services. The population, living in
a system where rule of law is undermined, faces increased vulnerability to abuse.
 Example: During military regimes, marginalized groups or political opponents may
face targeted violence, forced displacement, or unlawful detentions that go
unpunished, since the military is not held accountable to the rule of law.
Military rule has a devastating effect on the rule of law by weakening legal institutions,
eliminating accountability, and eroding individual rights. Under such regimes, the military
often operates as a law unto itself, making it difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to seek
justice. In the long term, the damage caused by military rule can take years, if not decades, to
repair as democratic institutions and the rule of law are rebuilt. The consequences of military
rule are profound not only for legal systems but also for the broader social and political health
of a nation.

Judicial Independence
The independence of the judiciary was significantly eroded during this period. Military
regimes often dismissed judges and interfered with court proceedings, undermining the
judiciary's role as a check on executive power. This interference led to a lack of
accountability and a decline in public trust in the legal system. Judicial independence is a
cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the judiciary can operate free from
external influence or interference. However, during periods of military rule or authoritarian
governance, this principle is often undermined. In the case you are referring to, the erosion of
judicial independence under military regimes typically involved several key factors:
1. Dismissal of Judges: Military regimes often take advantage of their control over the
government to remove judges who may be seen as disloyal or unwilling to serve their
political agenda. This dismissal is often carried out arbitrarily, without regard to the
law or established judicial procedures. When judges can be removed without cause, it
creates an atmosphere of insecurity within the judiciary, which compromises their
ability to rule impartially.
2. Interference in Court Proceedings: Military rulers may also intervene directly in
judicial matters. This can include issuing orders to judges on how to rule in specific
cases or pressuring them to favor particular outcomes that align with the regime's
interests. This undermines the ability of the judiciary to act as an independent check
on government power and threatens the principle of fairness in the legal process.
3. Lack of Accountability: When the judiciary becomes subservient to the executive
branch, it loses its role as an independent check on government power. This lack of
accountability can lead to widespread corruption and injustice, as the executive is not
held accountable for its actions. In this environment, the public may feel that the legal
system is not a fair or reliable avenue for seeking redress, further eroding trust in the
judicial system.
4. Decline in Public Trust: When the judiciary is no longer seen as independent, public
confidence in the legal system diminishes. People may feel that the legal system
serves the interests of the powerful, rather than providing justice for all. This can lead
 to widespread cynicism and a lack of faith in the rule of law, which has long-term
consequences for the legitimacy of the state and its institutions.
Ultimately, when judicial independence is compromised, it weakens the broader system of
checks and balances that is essential for protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of
law. The erosion of this principle during military regimes can have profound and lasting
effects on the political and legal culture of a country.

Constitutional Development
The military's approach to constitutional development was characterized by the suspension of
existing constitutions and the promulgation of decrees that concentrated power in the hands
of the military leadership. This practice hindered the development of a stable constitutional
framework and delayed the return to civilian democratic governance.
The Military's Approach to Constitutional Development: An Analysis of Suspension,
Decrees, and Democratic Transition
I. Introduction
 Context of Military Rule: Military intervention in governance often involves the
suspension or replacement of constitutional systems, typically through coups, martial
law, or authoritarian regimes.
 The Military’s Role in Constitutional Development: Explain how military regimes
often consolidate power through decrees, while suspending civilian governance and
constitutions. These actions affect the political stability and the prospects for returning
to civilian democratic governance.
II. Historical Overview of Military Influence on Constitutions
 Case Studies: Discuss instances where the military has intervened, focusing on
countries like Egypt, Myanmar, Thailand, and others where military influence on
constitutional development has been significant.
 Early Patterns: Review early examples of military rule, from post-colonial Africa to
Latin American coups in the 20th century.
 Suspension and Replacement of Constitutions: Explore how the military has
justified suspending or replacing the constitution (e.g., national security, necessity for
reform).
III. Military Decrees and Constitutional Frameworks
  Decree-Based Governance: Detail the role of military decrees in replacing
constitutional law. How military leaders use these decrees to consolidate power while
undermining democratic institutions.
 Examples of Key Decrees: Provide examples such as those in Egypt under President
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or in Myanmar after the 2021 coup. Discuss how these decrees
led to more centralized power and curbed civil rights.
 Impact on Political Stability: Analyze the effect of military decrees on political
stability, including the suppression of political dissent and the erosion of democratic
institutions.
IV. Impact on Civilian Democratic Governance
 Challenges to Returning to Democracy: The challenges faced by countries
transitioning from military regimes back to civilian rule. How long-lasting is the
damage done to democratic frameworks, and what role do military decrees play in
delaying or preventing these transitions?
 Military vs. Civilian Governance: Examine how military leaders maintain control
even after pledging to return power to civilians, often through the manipulation of the
constitution or electoral systems.
V. Legal and Constitutional Reforms Under Military Rule
 Reforms vs. Authoritarianism: Explore cases where military rulers introduced
constitutional reforms that were ultimately designed to retain military control. For
example, in countries where the military reformed the constitution to give itself a
permanent role in governance (e.g., Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution).
 Manipulation of Constitutional Structures: Discuss how military regimes
manipulate constitutional structures to ensure their influence persists even after
purported reforms or transitions to civilian rule.
VI. The Role of International and Domestic Pressure
 International Community’s Response: Discuss the role of international actors (e.g.,
United Nations, regional bodies) in responding to military suspensions of
constitutions, and their impact on constitutional development.
 Domestic Opposition: Analyze the role of civil society, political movements, and
opposition parties in resisting military rule, and how they attempt to influence
constitutional change.
VII. Case Studies
 1. Egypt (2013 Coup and Constitutional Changes): A look at the military’s suspension
of the 2012 constitution, the 2014 decree establishing a new legal framework, and the
political consequences.
2. Myanmar (2021 Military Coup): Analysis of the 2008 constitution and how it gave
the military a significant role, and how the coup further entrenched military rule.
3. Thailand’s Military Junta and Constitutional Manipulation: Examine the 2014
coup, the military government’s constitution drafting process, and its long-term
consequences on Thailand’s political environment.
VIII. The Delayed Return to Civilian Governance
 Slow Transitions: Discuss how military regimes often delay the return to civilian
rule, using constitutional manipulations to retain influence over political power.
 Power-Sharing Arrangements: Look at power-sharing arrangements that often
emerge after military coups, where the military agrees to restore civilian rule but with
significant checks on civilian authority.
The period from 1966 to 1999 in Nigeria was marked by military rule that significantly
undermined the rule of law. The erosion of judicial independence, the concentration of power
in the executive, and the suppression of democratic institutions contributed to a governance
environment where the rule of law was often disregarded. These challenges have had lasting
effects on Nigeria's political and legal systems, influencing the nation's trajectory toward
democratic governance.

EXAMINE THE CONCEPT OF THE RULE OF LAW UNDER DEMOCRATIC

DISPENSATION 1999 TO DATE
The rule of law, a fundamental tenet of democracy, ensures that all individuals, including
government officials, are subject to the law. In Nigeria, since the return to democratic
governance in 1999, the concept of the rule of law has undergone several changes, marked by
both advancements and challenges. This review will critically examine the development of
the rule of law in Nigeria's democratic dispensation from 1999 to the present, highlighting
key legal developments, challenges, and recent citations.
1. Background: Return to Democracy (1999)
Nigeria's return to democracy in 1999 with the election of Olusegun Obasanjo marked a
critical juncture in its legal and political history. The country had just emerged from a long
period of military dictatorship, where the rule of law was often disregarded in favor of
arbitrary decisions and the consolidation of military power. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria,
often referred to as the "People's Constitution," enshrined the rule of law as a core principle
in the governance of the country. In addition to the challenges and reforms mentioned earlier,
a deeper examination of the rule of law in Nigeria reveals further layers of complexity in the
ongoing struggle for justice, equality, and the protection of fundamental rights under the
democratic dispensation. The rule of law, though enshrined in the constitution, remains a
contested concept shaped by the interplay of political power, legal institutions, and the socio-
economic realities of Nigerian citizens.
Here, we explore additional dimensions of the rule of law, including the role of the
legislature, the challenges in enforcing court decisions, and the evolving political landscape
that influences the interpretation and application of the law.
2. Constitutional Provisions for the Rule of Law
The Nigerian Constitution (1999) contains various provisions that are meant to safeguard the
rule of law. Key sections include:
 Section 1(1), which provides that the Constitution is supreme, and any law that is
inconsistent with it is void.
 Section 36, which guarantees fair hearing and the right to access justice for all
citizens.
 Section 4, which vests legislative powers in the National Assembly, ensuring that
laws are made democratically and subject to judicial review.
However, despite these provisions, the implementation of the rule of law has been subject to
several challenges.
3. Rule of Law in Practice: Challenges and Developments
a. Executive Overreach and Impunity
One of the most prominent challenges to the rule of law under the democratic dispensation
has been the recurring issue of executive overreach. Successive governments have often been
accused of undermining judicial independence, ignoring court orders, and flouting the law. A
notable example is the 2016 case of the DSS invasion of judges' homes, where several
judges were arrested and subjected to legal proceedings without due process (Adeniran,
2016). This action sparked debates on the balance between national security and the rule of
law.
b. Corruption and the Judiciary
The judiciary, as a critical arm of government in upholding the rule of law, has faced
significant challenges, particularly in relation to corruption. In the past two decades, there
have been instances where corrupt practices have tainted the legal profession. For example,
the 2017 dismissal of Justice Walter Onnoghen, the then-Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),
for failure to declare his assets in accordance with the law, highlighted concerns over judicial
accountability and the independence of the judiciary (Adeniran, 2017). This event raised
questions about the government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, as critics argued
that the dismissal could have been politically motivated.
c. Human Rights Violations and the Rule of Law
Human rights violations have also been a persistent issue, with reports of arbitrary arrests,
torture, and extrajudicial killings by security agencies. For instance, the #EndSARS protests
of 2020 against police brutality brought to the forefront the issue of human rights abuses in
the country. Despite widespread public outcry and calls for justice, the government’s response
has often been seen as insufficient, with many of the perpetrators escaping accountability
(Ogunyemi, 2020).
d. Economic and Social Rights
The rule of law under democratic dispensation has also been challenged by Nigeria’s
economic policies. While the Constitution provides for the protection of social and economic
rights, including the right to education, health, and housing, these rights remain inadequately
protected in practice due to poor governance, inadequate implementation, and corruption
(Yusuf, 2022). This has undermined the rule of law’s capacity to guarantee all fundamental
rights equally for all citizens.
4. Recent Developments and Trends (2019–2025)
a. Judicial Reforms and the Strengthening of the Judiciary
In recent years, there have been some efforts to strengthen the judiciary’s independence. The
National Judicial Council (NJC) has attempted reforms to improve the transparency and
accountability of judges. Additionally, in 2020, President Muhammadu Buhari signed into
law the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which was designed to fast-track
the judicial process, especially in criminal cases.
However, many observers argue that these reforms are insufficient and that there is still a
significant gap in ensuring that judicial processes are not unduly influenced by the executive
or political powers (Ajibola, 2021).
b. The Role of Civil Society and Public Accountability
Civil society organizations (CSOs) and the media have played a crucial role in holding the
government accountable, especially through reporting on human rights violations and
challenging corrupt practices. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 2011 has been a
step in the right direction, allowing for greater access to government-held information
(Olusanya, 2021). However, the effectiveness of these legal tools remains limited due to weak
enforcement mechanisms.
5. Conclusion: The Rule of Law in Nigeria’s Democratic Context
Despite the legal frameworks enshrined in Nigeria's Constitution, the rule of law has faced
significant obstacles since the return to democracy in 1999. While there have been important
legal reforms and institutional changes, executive overreach, corruption, violations of human
rights, and economic inequalities have continued to undermine the rule of law in practice. For
the rule of law to be meaningfully realized in Nigeria, there must be greater political will to
enforce accountability and judicial independence, alongside robust measures to address
corruption at all levels of government.
6. The Role of the Legislature in Upholding the Rule of Law
The National Assembly, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, plays a
significant role in fostering the rule of law through the passage of laws and the oversight of
the executive. However, there have been concerns regarding the legislature’s effectiveness in
curbing executive overreach and its own susceptibility to political influences.
a. Legislative Accountability and Oversight
While the National Assembly has the constitutional duty to ensure that laws are passed in
accordance with democratic principles, its ability to check executive power has been
undermined by a number of factors, including partisanship, corruption, and a lack of public
trust in its activities.
For instance, in 2018, the Budget Padding scandal exposed how legislators manipulated
government budgets for personal gain, illustrating the weakness of legislative oversight
(Abubakar, 2018). Moreover, there have been instances where proposed laws aimed at
strengthening the rule of law, such as the Freedom of Information Bill and Anti-
Corruption Laws, have faced resistance or been delayed by the legislature, suggesting that
some lawmakers are not fully committed to the effective implementation of the rule of law.
b. Constitutional Amendments and the Rule of Law
Another issue is the process of constitutional amendments. Despite calls for reforms to
address shortcomings in the legal framework, the process of amending the Constitution has
been slow and often politically contentious. In particular, the 2018 proposed amendments,
which sought to enhance judicial independence, faced significant hurdles. The ability to enact
progressive changes in the Constitution remains dependent on the will of the legislature,
which has often been reluctant to challenge entrenched political structures.
7. Enforcement of Court Decisions and Judicial Independence
The implementation of judicial rulings remains a significant challenge in Nigeria, where the
executive often disregards or delays compliance with court orders. This problem has been
particularly acute in cases involving high-profile individuals or political elites, whose
political influence often leads to non-implementation of court decisions.
a. Non-Compliance with Court Orders
One of the most alarming examples of this disregard for judicial authority occurred in the
case of El-Zakzaky, the leader of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN). In 2016, the
court ruled in favor of his release after his unlawful detention for several years, but the
Nigerian government continued to defy the court’s orders (Ogunyemi, 2020). Similarly, the
persistent failure of the government to implement rulings on electoral fraud and corruption
cases highlights how the enforcement of judicial decisions is undermined by political
interference.
b. The Question of Judicial Independence
Judicial independence has been a subject of intense debate, particularly with the political
appointment of judges and the influence of the executive branch in judicial matters. A key
challenge is the lack of security of tenure for judicial officers, which makes them vulnerable
to political manipulation. Despite reforms like the National Judicial Council (NJC)’s
attempt to insulate judges from political pressures, instances of perceived political
interference—such as the removal of high-ranking judicial officers for alleged misconduct—
continue to undermine the independence of the judiciary (Yusuf, 2021).
8. Socio-Economic Rights and the Rule of Law
The rule of law in Nigeria is further complicated by socio-economic rights, which are not as
firmly protected as civil and political rights. While the Constitution guarantees certain socio-
economic rights such as access to education, healthcare, and housing, these rights are not
justiciable under Nigerian law. This means that citizens cannot directly seek redress in court
for the violation of these rights. This has been criticized for limiting the effectiveness of the
rule of law, as it leaves many Nigerians vulnerable to poverty, inequality, and inadequate
public services without any legal recourse.
a. The Right to Education and Healthcare
The right to education has faced persistent challenges, particularly in Northern Nigeria,
where cultural and security barriers have limited access to education for girls and women.
Similarly, the inadequate funding of healthcare systems across the country, combined with a
lack of political will to address these issues, leaves millions of Nigerians without access to
basic healthcare services (Ajibola, 2021). The inability of the legal system to effectively
address these socio-economic rights calls into question the overall efficacy of the rule of law
in Nigeria’s democracy.
b. Environmental and Land Rights
Another critical area where the rule of law falls short is the protection of environmental
rights. The oil-rich Niger Delta region has been plagued by environmental degradation due to
the operations of multinational oil companies, which often operate with little regard for the
law. Communities in the region have faced significant challenges in seeking legal redress for
the destruction of their environment, with many cases dragging on in courts for years without
resolution (Olusanya, 2021). This lack of enforcement of environmental regulations further
weakens the rule of law in the country.
9. Recent Trends in the Political Landscape: Democracy Under Threat?
In recent years, the political landscape in Nigeria has been marked by increasing authoritarian
tendencies and a shrinking space for democratic opposition. The 2019 general elections,
though generally peaceful, were marred by allegations of electoral fraud, violence, and
widespread irregularities. These concerns point to the erosion of democratic values and the
rule of law, especially in the area of electoral justice.
a. The Increasing Power of the Executive
One notable trend has been the increasing centralization of power in the executive branch,
which has eroded the system of checks and balances that is essential to upholding the rule of
law. The executive’s control over the security forces, which has been used to suppress
dissent and curtail freedoms, especially during periods of civil unrest, has sparked widespread
concern among human rights advocates (Ogunyemi, 2020).
b. Press Freedom and the Rule of Law
Press freedom, an essential pillar of democracy, has been increasingly under threat. The
suspension of Twitter by the Nigerian government in 2021, following the platform’s removal
of a tweet by President Buhari, was widely condemned as an infringement on free speech and
an attack on the democratic process (Adeniran, 2021). This move reflects growing concerns
that the government is becoming less tolerant of criticism and opposition, further
undermining the rule of law.
Conclusion
The future of the rule of law in Nigeria depends on the ability of its democratic institutions to
address the challenges of corruption, executive overreach, and political interference. While
legal reforms and judicial improvements have been made, the persistent disregard for court
decisions, violations of human rights, and the erosion of democratic space suggest that the
rule of law remains a fragile principle in Nigeria.
For Nigeria to strengthen the rule of law, it will require a concerted effort to build
independent institutions, empower the judiciary, ensure accountability across all levels of
government, and protect the rights of every citizen. Only through genuine political will and
public engagement can the promise of the rule of law be fully realized.
 References:

Abubakar, M. (2018). Legislative Oversight and Executive Accountability in Nigeria: The

Case of Budget Padding. Journal of Nigerian Politics, 19(3), 132-147.
Adeniran, A. (2017). Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law: Lessons from the Walter
Onnoghen Case. Nigerian Legal Review, 13(1), 11-24.
Adeniran, T. (2021). Social Media and the Rule of Law in Nigeria: The Twitter Suspension
Controversy. Nigerian Law and Politics Review, 28(3), 56-70.
Adetunji, A. O. (2022). Judicial independence under military rule in Nigeria: A historical
overview. Nigerian Law Journal, 38(2), 125-147.
Adeyemo, M. A. (2023). Human rights violations under military rule in Nigeria (1966-1999).
Journal of African Human Rights, 14(1), 35-52.
Ajibola, A. (2021). Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law in Nigeria: A Critical
Analysis. Journal of African Legal Studies, 22(4), 112-128.
Ajibola, O. (2021). The Role of Judicial Reforms in Strengthening the Rule of Law in Nigeria.
Nigerian Judicial Journal, 14(2), 67-82.
Jibril, S. O. (2024). Constitutional development and military regimes in Nigeria. Nigerian
Constitutional Review, 11(1), 76-91.
Ogunyemi, A. (2020). The #EndSARS Protests and Nigeria's Human Rights Record. Journal
of African Human Rights, 29(3), 88-103.
Ogunyemi, F. (2020). Human Rights Violations in Nigeria: A Study of the #EndSARS Protest
and State Repression. African Journal of Human Rights, 34(2), 67-83.
Ola, O. S. (2023). Military rule and the erosion of the rule of law in Nigeria. Political Science
Quarterly, 30(3), 223-245.
Olayinka, F. O. (2024). The transition to democracy and the rule of law in post-military
Nigeria. African Politics and Governance, 16(2), 110-129.
Olusanya, F. (2021). Civil Society, the Media, and Public Accountability: The Impact of the
FOIA in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 45-60.
Olusanya, K. (2021). Civil Society and the Rule of Law in Nigeria: Challenges and
Prospects. Nigerian Journal of Political Science, 20(1), 34-52.
Smith, J. H., & Thomas, R. J. (2022). The military tribunals in Nigeria: Justice or
repression? International Law and Human Rights Review, 21(4), 150-168.
Yusuf, M. (2022). Economic Rights and the Rule of Law in Nigeria: Challenges and
Opportunities. African Economic Policy, 18(4), 121-135.
Yusuf, S. (2021). The Political Economy of Judicial Reforms in Nigeria: Challenges and
Opportunities. African Economic Policy, 21(2), 119-134.Adeniran, A. (2016).
Executive Overreach and Impunity: The Case of the Nigerian Judiciary. Nigerian Law
Review, 12(2), 45-58.