Judicial Review in Nigeria: The Court’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

Judicial Review in Nigeria: The Court’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

1. Introduction: Laying the Foundation of Constitutional Governance

Constitutionalism, at its core, represents the aspiration for a government of laws, not of men. It is the architectural blueprint of a modern democratic state, aiming to limit governmental power, enshrine fundamental rights, and ensure predictable governance under the rule of law. Central to this concept is the notion that no arm of government, no individual, and no law stands above the supreme law of the land – the Constitution. In a constitutional democracy, the ultimate authority rests not with any single institution, but with the foundational document that defines the state’s very existence and operation.

It is within this framework that judicial review emerges as an indispensable mechanism. Simply put, judicial review is the power of the courts to scrutinize and invalidate legislative enactments, executive actions, and administrative decisions that are found to be inconsistent with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution. It acts as a crucial check and balance, preventing potential abuses of power by the other two branches of government – the legislature and the executive – and ensuring their adherence to constitutional dictates.

In Nigeria, a nation with a written and supreme Constitution, the role of judicial review in upholding constitutional governance is particularly profound. The country’s history, marked by periods of military rule and constitutional instability, has underscored the critical need for a vigilant judiciary capable of safeguarding the grundnorm.

This blog post delves into the multifaceted role of the Nigerian courts in constitutional interpretation through the lens of judicial review, arguing that it is an indispensable tool for ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and ultimately, strengthening the nation’s democratic institutions. We will explore its historical trajectory, its constitutional underpinnings, the various forms it takes, the principles guiding its application, and the persistent challenges that temper its effectiveness, while also casting a gaze towards its future.

2. Historical Genesis and Evolution of Judicial Review in Nigeria

The roots of judicial review in Nigeria are deeply intertwined with its colonial past and the reception of English common law. The Westminster model of governance, introduced by the British, implicitly contained the idea of courts interpreting statutes and ensuring their compliance with broader legal principles. However, the concept truly began to solidify with the advent of written constitutions.

In the pre-independence era, while the legal system was primarily geared towards colonial administration, the foundational principles that would later underpin judicial review were being laid. With the attainment of independence and the adoption of the 1960 and subsequent 1963 Republican Constitutions, Nigeria formally embraced a federal system with a supreme written constitution. These instruments explicitly delineated powers among the federal and regional governments, creating fertile ground for judicial interpretation of legislative competence. Early cases, such as Doherty v. Balewa (1961), although not strictly judicial review in the modern sense of striking down a statute, demonstrated the courts’ readiness to interpret constitutional provisions and pronounce on the legality of governmental actions.

The periods of military rule, however, represented the most significant challenge to the development and exercise of judicial review. Military governments, often operating under decrees that suspended or modified significant portions of the Constitution and contained “ouster clauses” designed to strip courts of their jurisdiction, severely constrained the judiciary. Despite these formidable obstacles, the Nigerian judiciary, in some instances, exhibited remarkable courage. The landmark case of Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State) (1971) stands out, where the Supreme Court bravely held that a military decree purporting to validate past expropriations was unconstitutional.

Although this decision was swiftly overturned by the military government through a new decree with retroactive effect, it cemented the judiciary’s theoretical claim to judicial review and signaled its potential as a guardian of constitutionalism, even under authoritarian rule. This period highlighted the inherent tension between military might and the rule of law, showcasing the judiciary’s resilience in the face of executive usurpation.

The return to civilian rule in 1979 and particularly in 1999, with the promulgation of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), marked a new dawn for judicial review in Nigeria. The 1999 Constitution, arguably the most elaborate and comprehensive, significantly reinforced the judiciary’s powers, providing explicit and robust provisions for constitutional interpretation and oversight, thereby solidifying its position as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes.

3. Constitutional Basis and Jurisdictional Framework

The authority for judicial review in Nigeria is not merely implied; it is expressly entrenched within the fabric of the 1999 Constitution. This explicit constitutional grounding provides the courts with an undeniable mandate to act as guardians of the supreme law.

Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution emphatically declares the supremacy of the Constitution: “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” This provision is the bedrock of judicial review, directly empowering the courts to nullify any law or action that conflicts with the Constitution.

Furthermore, Section 4(8) is a crucial anti-ouster clause, stating: “Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law; and accordingly, the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any law that ousts or purports to oust the juri¹sdiction of a court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law.” This provision directly confronts the historical challenge of ouster clauses by expressly prohibiting legislative attempts to remove the courts’ power of review.

The judicial powers of the Federation are vested in the courts by Section 6(1) and (2). More specifically, Section 6(6)(b) extends these judicial powers to “all matters between persons, or between government or authority and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person².” This broad grant of power is interpreted by the courts to encompass the authority to review the legality and constitutionality of governmental actions.

Beyond these general provisions, specific sections of the Constitution define the jurisdiction of various courts in relation to constitutional matters:

• Section 251 vests the Federal High Court with exclusive jurisdiction over certain federal matters, including those involving the federal government or its agencies.
• Section 272 grants the High Court of a State jurisdiction over matters pertaining to state laws and the enforcement of fundamental rights within its state.
• Section 232 outlines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between the Federation and a State or between States.
• Section 239 and Section 240 define the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, allowing for appeals from lower courts on constitutional questions.

The Constitution thus establishes a clear hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court serving as the apex court and the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, its decisions binding on all other courts and authorities in Nigeria. While these express provisions form the primary basis, the courts also derive inherent powers from the very nature of a written constitution and the principle of separation of powers, enabling them to ensure that no arm of government oversteps its constitutional boundaries.

4. The Modalities and Forms of Judicial Review

Judicial review in Nigeria manifests in various forms, each designed to address specific types of constitutional infractions by the legislative and executive arms of government.

Review of Legislative Acts:

This is perhaps the most direct form of judicial review, where courts assess the constitutionality of laws enacted by the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly.

• Unconstitutionality of Statutes: Courts possess the power to declare a statute or a part thereof null and void if it contravenes any provision of the Constitution. This often arises when a law infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter IV of the Constitution (e.g., freedom of expression, right to fair hearing) or if it exceeds the legislative competence of the enacting body (e.g., a state legislature enacting a law on an item exclusively reserved for the federal legislature in the Exclusive Legislative List).
• Ultra Vires Doctrine: Beyond fundamental rights, courts also apply the ultra vires (beyond powers) doctrine. A law is ultra vires if the legislative body that enacted it lacked the constitutional authority to do so. For example, if a State House of Assembly passes a law relating to defence, which is on the Exclusive Legislative List, a court would declare such a law ultra vires and therefore void.

Review of Executive Actions:

Courts actively scrutinize the actions, decisions, and policies of the executive arm of government to ensure their legality and constitutionality.

• Prerogative Writs (now known as Prerogative Orders): These are powerful tools used by the courts to control executive and administrative excesses.
  • Certiorari: Used to quash the decision of a lower court, tribunal, or public authority that has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with an error of law on the face of the record, or in violation of natural justice. For instance, if a public servant is dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend themselves, certiorari could be used to quash the dismissal.
  • Mandamus: An order compelling a public official or body to perform a public duty that they are legally obliged to perform but have failed to do. For example, if a government agency refuses to issue a license to a qualified applicant without lawful excuse, mandamus can compel them to do so.
  • Prohibition: An order preventing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law in a matter yet to be concluded. It is a preventive measure.
  • Habeas Corpus: An order requiring a person who has custody of another to produce that person in court and show legal justification for their detention. It is crucial for protecting the right to personal liberty.
  • Quo Warranto: Used to challenge the authority of a person holding a public office, requiring them to show by what authority they hold that office.
• Abuse of Power/Discretion: Courts review executive actions for arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or where discretionary powers have been exercised for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

Review of Administrative Actions:

This often overlaps with executive actions but specifically targets actions by administrative bodies and officials.

• Delegated Legislation: Courts review subsidiary legislation (regulations, rules, by-laws) made by administrative bodies under powers delegated by statute. The review ensures that these instruments do not exceed the scope of the enabling law and do not violate constitutional provisions.
• Fair Hearing and Natural Justice: A cornerstone of administrative law, judicial review actively enforces the principles of natural justice. This includes audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). If an administrative decision is made without affording the affected party a fair hearing, it is liable to be quashed.

Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights:

Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution guarantees a range of fundamental human rights. Judicial review is the primary mechanism for their enforcement.

• The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (FREPR), first introduced in 1979 and significantly revised in 2009, provide a fast-track procedure for individuals to approach the High Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. These rules encourage a liberal approach to standing and aim to facilitate swift justice in human rights cases. This mechanism allows individuals to directly challenge state actions or omissions that violate their rights, making the courts a crucial avenue for civil liberties protection.

Through these various modalities, the Nigerian judiciary actively fulfills its constitutional mandate to ensure that governmental power is exercised within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

5. Principles and Doctrines Guiding Constitutional Interpretation

Nigerian courts, in exercising their judicial review powers, adhere to a range of principles and doctrines to ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in constitutional interpretation. These guiding principles shape how the judiciary understands and applies the supreme law.

• Purposive Approach: This is a dominant approach in Nigerian constitutional interpretation. Courts often look beyond the literal words of a constitutional provision to ascertain the underlying purpose, spirit, and intent of the framers. The aim is to give effect to the objective that the Constitution seeks to achieve. For instance, in interpreting fundamental rights, courts tend to adopt an interpretation that maximizes the enjoyment of those rights, reflecting the purpose of Chapter IV.
• Literal Rule: Where the language of a constitutional provision is clear, unambiguous, and precise, courts generally apply the literal or plain meaning of the words. This approach emphasizes judicial restraint, avoiding judicial legislation by adhering strictly to the text. However, in constitutional matters, this is often balanced with the purposive approach to prevent absurd outcomes.
• Harmonious Construction: The Constitution is regarded as a holistic document, and its various provisions are expected to co-exist without conflict. When confronted with apparent inconsistencies or conflicts between different sections, courts endeavor to interpret them in a way that harmonizes them, giving effect to all provisions where possible, rather than nullifying one in favor of another. This principle ensures the coherence and integrity of the constitutional framework.
• Supremacy Clause Interpretation: Flowing directly from Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, courts consistently uphold the supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws and actions. Any law, executive act, or administrative decision that is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution is declared null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. This principle reinforces the Constitution as the grundnorm from which all other laws derive their validity.
• Stare Decisis and Precedent: The doctrine of stare decisis (to stand by decided matters) is fundamental to the Nigerian legal system, including constitutional adjudication. Courts are generally bound by the decisions of higher courts and, to some extent, by their own previous decisions. This ensures consistency, predictability, and certainty in the application of constitutional principles. However, the Supreme Court, as the apex court, has the power to depart from its previous decisions when it deems them to have been made per incuriam (through inadvertence) or to be manifestly wrong, or where circumstances have changed significantly. This flexibility allows for the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence.
• Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism: This represents a continuous tension and debate within the Nigerian judiciary and legal community.
  • Judicial Restraint: Advocates of judicial restraint argue that courts should exercise caution and deference to the legislative and executive branches, intervening only when there is a clear and undeniable constitutional violation. This approach emphasizes the separation of powers and avoids judicial encroachment into policy-making or purely political questions. It suggests that courts should not substitute their wisdom for that of elected officials.
  • Judicial Activism: Conversely, judicial activism involves a more proactive and interventionist role for the judiciary, particularly in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring governmental accountability. Proponents argue that courts should not shy away from striking down unconstitutional laws or actions, even if it means stepping into politically sensitive areas, especially when the other branches fail to uphold constitutional norms.
  • In the Nigerian context, the judiciary has at times leaned towards activism, particularly in the post-1999 era, in its efforts to enforce fundamental rights and curb executive excesses. However, the debate continues, with some scholars and practitioners advocating for a more restrained approach to avoid perceptions of overreach or politicization. The balance between these two approaches remains a dynamic aspect of constitutional interpretation in Nigeria.

These principles, when applied diligently, enable the Nigerian courts to interpret the Constitution not as a static document, but as a living instrument that responds to the evolving needs and aspirations of society, while maintaining its foundational supremacy.

6. Key Cases and Landmark Judgments in Nigerian Judicial Review

The development of judicial review in Nigeria is best understood through its landmark cases, which have shaped constitutional jurisprudence and defined the boundaries of governmental power.

Pre-1999 Era:

• Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State) (1971): This remains a significant, albeit controversial, case. The Supreme Court courageously challenged the legality of a military decree that sought to confiscate properties and validate past actions. The Court held that the decree, which purported to be “supreme” over the 1963 Constitution, was still subject to judicial review, as it fundamentally altered the constitutional framework without proper authority. While the military government swiftly overturned this judgment with the “Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers Decree No. 28 of 1970,” which retrospectively ousted the court’s jurisdiction, Lakanmi remains a powerful symbol of judicial bravery and the assertion of constitutional supremacy, even under military regimes.
• Ademolekun v. The Executive Council of the Western Region (1962): This case, though predating the full maturity of judicial review as seen today, is an early example of courts challenging executive action based on statutory interpretation. It demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to invalidate administrative actions that were not carried out in accordance with the law, laying a conceptual groundwork for later constitutional challenges.

Post-1999 Era:

The return to democratic rule ushered in a prolific period for judicial review, with courts actively engaging in constitutional interpretation across various domains. (Note: Specific case names are illustrative and would require thorough, up-to-date research for a comprehensive blog post).

• Electoral Matters: Nigerian courts, particularly the election tribunals and appellate courts, play a crucial role in resolving electoral disputes. Landmark cases often involve:
  • Interpretation of Electoral Act provisions: Determining the legality of candidate nominations, conduct of elections, and validity of results. Cases often clarify the strict adherence to statutory timelines and procedures.
  • Challenges to election outcomes: Examining allegations of rigging, voter fraud, and non-compliance with electoral laws. The decisions of the Supreme Court in presidential election petitions, such as those following the 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, and 2023 elections, have significantly shaped electoral jurisprudence.
  • Example: Cases like Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) or Atiku v. Yar’Adua (2008), and more recently, judgments on the 2023 elections, set precedents on burden of proof, electoral irregularities, and the finality of election petitions.
• Fundamental Rights Enforcement: Courts have been particularly active in enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter IV of the Constitution.
  • Freedom of Expression: Cases involving journalists, activists, and citizens challenging restrictions on speech or publication, often interpreting the scope and limitations of Section 39.
  • Right to Personal Liberty and Fair Hearing: Challenges to unlawful arrests, detentions, and administrative panels that deny fair hearing. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 have facilitated a more liberal approach to locus standi in these cases, allowing public interest litigation.
  • Example: Cases on unlawful detention or police brutality have led to significant pronouncements on human rights protection.
• Federalism and Division of Powers: Disputes between the Federal Government and State Governments, or among States, frequently necessitate judicial intervention to interpret the distribution of legislative and executive powers.
  • Legislative Competence: Cases determining whether a particular subject matter falls within the Exclusive, Concurrent, or Residual Legislative Lists.
  • Revenue Allocation: Disputes over the sharing of national revenue.
  • Example: Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors (Resource Control Case) (2002) was a monumental case that interpreted the concept of derivation principle in revenue allocation and the ownership of offshore oil resources, profoundly impacting Nigerian federalism.
• Separation of Powers: Cases involving disputes between the three arms of government, often challenging alleged overreach by one arm.
  • Executive Overreach: Challenges to executive orders, appointments, or actions that are deemed to be beyond presidential or gubernatorial powers.
  • Legislative Contempt/Summons: Cases where individuals or bodies challenge the power of the legislature to summon them or hold them in contempt.
  • Example: Cases involving the confirmation of ministerial nominees, or the power of the National Assembly to summon public officials. The National Assembly v. President cases, though less frequent in their definitive public outcomes, illustrate these ongoing tensions.
• Public Interest Litigation: While traditionally strict on locus standi, the judiciary has shown signs of a more liberal approach in certain areas, particularly in fundamental rights and environmental matters, allowing public-spirited individuals or organizations to bring cases on behalf of the wider public.
  • Example: Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019), where the Supreme Court evinced a more liberal stance on locus standi in environmental litigation, allowing a non-governmental organization to sue on behalf of the environment.

These landmark judgments underscore the dynamic and evolving nature of judicial review in Nigeria, demonstrating the courts’ crucial role in defining the contours of constitutional democracy and the rule of law.

7. Challenges and Criticisms of Judicial Review in Nigeria

Despite its vital role, judicial review in Nigeria faces a myriad of challenges and criticisms that often impede its effectiveness and undermine public confidence. Addressing these “blind spots” is crucial for strengthening the judiciary and the rule of law.

• Judicial Corruption and Integrity Concerns: Perhaps the most pervasive and damaging criticism is the perception, and in some documented cases, the reality, of corruption within the judiciary. Allegations of judges taking bribes, or making decisions influenced by political or financial inducements, erode public trust and cast a shadow over the integrity of judgments, including those related to constitutional interpretation. This directly compromises the impartiality and independence that are prerequisites for effective judicial review.
• Executive Disregard for Court Orders: A significant hurdle to the efficacy of judicial review is the recurring problem of executive disobedience to court orders. Instances where the executive arm of government, at both federal and state levels, has openly disregarded, delayed compliance with, or selectively enforced judicial pronouncements severely undermine the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers. Such actions render judicial review a theoretical exercise rather than a practical safeguard. This defiance often takes the form of non-release of individuals granted bail, re-arrests after acquittal, or refusal to pay damages awarded by courts.
• Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms and Funding: While courts can issue orders, the actual enforcement often relies on the executive. Inadequate enforcement mechanisms, coupled with a lack of financial autonomy for the judiciary (despite constitutional provisions for direct funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund), can hobble its operations. Delays in fund disbursement can affect court infrastructure, judicial welfare, and the ability to conduct necessary research or training.
• Problem of Locus Standi (Standing): Traditionally, Nigerian courts have adopted a strict interpretation of locus standi, requiring an applicant to demonstrate a direct and sufficient personal interest in the matter to bring a case. This narrow approach has historically limited public interest litigation, making it difficult for public-spirited individuals or organizations to challenge governmental actions that affect the general populace but do not directly harm a specific individual. While the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 have introduced a more liberal stance for human rights cases, the broader application of locus standi remains a point of contention and a barrier to access to justice for many public interest issues.
• Delay in Judicial Process (Justice Delayed, Justice Denied): The Nigerian judicial system is notoriously slow. Cases, including constitutional ones, can drag on for years, sometimes decades, due to complex procedures, frequent adjournments, and insufficient judicial resources. This delay frustrates litigants, diminishes the deterrent effect of judicial pronouncements, and can render even a favorable judgment ineffective in practical terms.
• Politicization of the Judiciary: Concerns about the politicization of judicial appointments, where merit may be overlooked in favor of political patronage or ethnic/religious considerations, undermine the perceived neutrality and competence of the judiciary. This can lead to a judiciary susceptible to political influence, especially in high-profile constitutional cases. The process of judicial removal, as exemplified by past controversial events, also raises questions about judicial independence.
• Access to Justice Barriers: Beyond locus standi and delays, other barriers to access justice include the high cost of litigation (legal fees, court fees), geographical disparities in court infrastructure, and a general lack of public legal awareness. These factors disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized, effectively denying them the full benefits of judicial review.
• Judicial Overreach/Activism Concerns: Conversely, some critics argue that the judiciary occasionally oversteps its bounds, venturing into policy-making or purely political questions that should ideally be left to the elected branches. While judicial activism can be lauded for protecting rights, excessive intervention can lead to accusations of judicial supremacy and undermine the principle of separation of powers. Finding the right balance between judicial restraint and activism is a constant challenge.

These multifaceted challenges highlight the complex environment in which judicial review operates in Nigeria. Addressing them requires comprehensive legal reforms, enhanced institutional integrity, and a collective commitment from all branches of government and civil society to uphold the rule of law.

8. The Future of Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation in Nigeria

The future of judicial review and constitutional interpretation in Nigeria hinges on a concerted effort to address its existing challenges and embrace forward-looking reforms. The judiciary’s continued effectiveness as a bulwark against authoritarianism and a guarantor of constitutionalism depends on several critical factors.

• Strengthening Judicial Independence: This is paramount. True independence requires not only constitutional guarantees but also practical measures. These include:
  • Financial Autonomy: Ensuring that the judiciary receives its allocated funds directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, without executive interference or bureaucratic delays, is crucial for its operational independence.
  • Transparent Appointment and Disciplinary Processes: Reforming the judicial appointment process to emphasize meritocracy over political or personal connections, and ensuring robust, transparent disciplinary mechanisms for erring judges, will enhance public trust and the judiciary’s integrity.
  • Security of Tenure: Upholding the security of tenure for judges, ensuring they cannot be easily removed for politically motivated reasons, is fundamental.
  • Protection of Judges: Providing adequate security for judicial officers, particularly in a high-stakes litigation environment, is essential to enable them to dispense justice without fear.
• Promoting Judicial Accountability: While independence is vital, it must be balanced with accountability. This involves:
  • Strengthening the National Judicial Council (NJC): Enhancing the NJC’s capacity to investigate and sanction judicial misconduct fairly and expeditiously.
  • Ethical Standards and Conduct: Continuous emphasis on and enforcement of strict codes of conduct for judicial officers to maintain the highest ethical standards.
• Enhancing Legal Education and Specialization: The complexity of constitutional law necessitates a highly skilled and specialized judiciary.
  • Continuous Professional Development: Regular training programs, seminars, and workshops for judges and legal practitioners on evolving constitutional principles, comparative constitutional law, and judicial ethics.
  • Specialized Constitutional Benches: Considering the establishment of specialized constitutional benches within the High Courts and appellate courts to handle complex constitutional matters, thereby fostering expertise and expediting resolution.
• Role of Civil Society and Public Awareness: An informed and active citizenry is critical for sustaining constitutionalism.
  • Public Interest Litigation Advocacy: Civil society organizations (CSOs) and legal aid groups can play a more robust role in championing public interest litigation and advocating for a more liberal approach to locus standi.
  • Constitutional Literacy: Promoting widespread public education on constitutional rights and the role of the judiciary can empower citizens to demand accountability and defend their rights.
  • Media Vigilance: Encouraging responsible and informed media reporting on judicial processes and constitutional issues helps to hold the judiciary and other arms of government accountable.
• Technological Advancements: Leveraging technology can significantly improve judicial processes and access to justice.
  • E-filing and Case Management Systems: Implementing robust e-filing systems, virtual court proceedings, and automated case management systems can reduce delays, enhance transparency, and improve efficiency.
  • Online Access to Judgments: Making court judgments easily accessible online can promote legal research, consistency, and public understanding of judicial pronouncements.
• Comparative Perspectives: Nigeria can draw valuable lessons from other jurisdictions with robust judicial review systems. Studying how other democracies address challenges like executive disobedience, judicial appointments, and delays can provide models for reform tailored to the Nigerian context.
• Constitutional Amendments: While the 1999 Constitution is comprehensive, periodic review and amendment may be necessary to address emerging issues, clarify ambiguities, and strengthen institutions, including the judiciary.

The future of judicial review in Nigeria is not merely a legal concern; it is fundamental to the nation’s democratic consolidation and its aspiration for a society governed by the rule of law. It requires an ongoing commitment from all stakeholders – the judiciary, the executive, the legislature, legal practitioners, civil society, and the citizenry – to nurture and protect this vital institution.

9. Conclusion: Upholding the Pillars of Democracy

Judicial review in Nigeria is far more than a legal technicality; it stands as an indispensable pillar supporting the edifice of the nation’s constitutional democracy. From its nascent stages influenced by colonial legal traditions to its firm entrenchment in the 1999 Constitution, the power of the courts to interpret and enforce the supreme law has been a continuous thread in Nigeria’s constitutional narrative.

We have traversed the historical evolution that saw the judiciary navigate the turbulent waters of military rule, emerging with a reinforced constitutional mandate. The explicit provisions of the 1999 Constitution, particularly Sections 1(3), 4(8), and 6(6)(b), provide the unassailable legal foundation for the courts to scrutinize and invalidate unconstitutional legislative acts, executive excesses, and administrative malfeasance. The various modalities of judicial review – from challenging legislative competence and applying prerogative orders to fiercely protecting fundamental human rights – underscore the judiciary’s proactive role in maintaining the delicate balance of powers.

Guiding this intricate process are established principles of interpretation, including the purposive approach, harmonious construction, and the unwavering commitment to constitutional supremacy, all underpinned by the doctrine of stare decisis. Landmark judgments, spanning electoral disputes, federalism, human rights enforcement, and separation of powers, serve as tangible evidence of the judiciary’s critical interventions in shaping and safeguarding the nation’s democratic journey.

Yet, our exploration would be incomplete without acknowledging the profound challenges that persist. Issues such as concerns over judicial integrity, executive non-compliance with court orders, systemic delays, the strictures of locus standi, and the politicization of appointments continue to test the resilience and public trust in the judicial system. These are not mere footnotes but significant obstacles that demand urgent and sustained attention.

Looking ahead, the imperative is clear: to fortify judicial independence, enhance accountability, promote legal education, and foster greater public awareness and engagement. The synergy of a robust, impartial, and well-resourced judiciary with a vigilant civil society and a responsive political class is crucial for the continuous evolution and strengthening of judicial review in Nigeria.

In summation, the Nigerian judiciary’s role in constitutional interpretation through judicial review is not merely about resolving disputes; it is about defining the very essence of governance, holding power accountable, and ultimately, ensuring that the promise of a constitutional democracy – where the rule of law reigns supreme – is not just an ideal, but a lived reality for all Nigerians. The ongoing vigilance and commitment of all stakeholders are indispensable to uphold this vital institution and secure the nation’s democratic future.