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
The court challenged the military government’s attempt to confiscate property belonging to individuals accused of corrupt enrichment, holding that the courts retained jurisdiction to examine the validity of the measure
The military government responded with Decree No 28 of 1970, the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Decree, which effectively nullified the impact of the judgment and asserted the supremacy of military decrees.
The case became a landmark illustration of the limitations imposed on judicial power under military rule The restrictions became more extensive during the military regimes of the 1980s and 1990s.
Decree No 2 of 1984, the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree, permitted detention without trial. Decree No. 12 of 1984 also restricted the jurisdiction of regular courts over acts of the Federal Military Government.
Military regimes established special tribunals to handle cases involving offences such as coup plotting, corruption and armed robbery Their decisions were often insulated from the review of regular courts.
Human Rights Watch documented extensive restrictions on judicial independence during the Abacha era, including military decrees that excluded judicial review and the use of special tribunals outside the regular constitutional court structure
By the final years of military rule, the judiciary was also dealing with problems of inadequate funding, delays, under-staffing and allegations of corruption
The return to democratic government on May 29, 1999, fundamentally changed the constitutional environment in which the courts operated
The 1999 Constitution restored the principle of separation of powers and strengthened the institutional framework of the judiciary It also established the National Judicial Council, NJC, under Section 153, giving it important responsibilities for the appointment and discipline of judicial officers.
The NJC says its creation was intended to promote judicial independence and insulate the judiciary from undue interference
The courts subsequently became central players in disputes involving elected governments, political parties and public institutionsUnlike the military era, when decrees could expressly prevent courts from questioning government actions, the constitutional order of the Fourth Republic permits citizens, governments and political parties to challenge executive and legislative actions through litigation.
The Supreme Court has consequently become a major constitutional and political arbiter
It determines appeals in civil, criminal and constitutional matters and has original jurisdiction in disputes between the Federation and states
One of the most important areas of judicial activity since 1999 has been electoral litigation
Presidential, governorship, National Assembly and state assembly elections have generated thousands of cases, requiring courts to interpret electoral laws and constitutional provisions and determine disputes over nominations, qualifications, voting procedures and election results
This expanded role has, however, brought new pressures Courts have increasingly been criticised over delays, contradictory decisions and the proliferation of cases filed in politically sensitive disputes.
The Kano Emirate crisis of 2024 provided a striking example Competing proceedings before the Federal High Court and Kano State High Court produced orders relating to the Kano emirate dispute. The National Judicial Council described the conflicting orders as “very disturbing” and summoned the heads of the two courts for an emergency meeting.
The episode demonstrated that even under constitutional democracy, conflicting orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction can create serious institutional difficulties
The democratic era has also witnessed a more formal mechanism for judicial accountability The NJC regularly considers petitions against judicial officers and has sanctioned judges for established misconduct.
In November 2024, for instance, the Council sanctioned five judicial officers, including suspending Justice GC. Aguma of the Rivers State High Court for one year without pay and placing him on a two-year watch list. It also recommended the compulsory retirement of two heads of court.
In April 2025, the NJC announced the suspension of three judicial officers for one year without pay and investigations into complaints against 27 others
Yet judicial independence remains an unfinished project The NJC has identified challenges including interference in the administration of justice, non-compliance by some state governments with constitutional provisions relating to judicial funding and concerns surrounding the removal of judicial heads.
The judiciary is also confronting a growing debate over conflicting judgments The journey from military to civilian rule has therefore changed the nature of the judiciary’s challenges.
Under military rule, the central problem was the subordination of judicial authority to military decrees and executive power
Under civilian rule, the courts enjoy substantially greater constitutional protection and authority, but face challenges involving delays, funding, conflicting judgments, judicial misconduct, political litigation and public confidence
The history of Nigeria’s judiciary since independence is therefore not simply a story of military suppression followed by democratic freedom It is a story of an institution continually negotiating the limits of its power — and of the continuing struggle to make constitutional judicial independence translate into timely, consistent and accessible justice for Nigerians.