The Constitutional Independence of the Nigerian Judiciary: Between Theory and Practice

Edo State, Nigeria – The independence of the judiciary has long been upheld as a cornerstone of democratic governance. In theory, Nigeria’s Constitution offers robust protections to shield the judiciary from undue influence. In practice, however, these constitutional guarantees often crumble under political interference, executive overreach, and chronic underfunding.

Constitutional Provisions and Intent

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, clearly enshrines the principle of judicial independence. Section 6 vests judicial powers in the courts, setting the judiciary apart from the other two arms of government— the Legislature (Section 4) and the Executive (Section 5). According to legal scholars and authorities like Justice Nikki Tobi (JSC), this separation is not just fundamental but non-negotiable in a functional democracy.

Further strengthening this independence, Sections 6(6)(a) and (b) make all persons and authorities in Nigeria subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, including the President, notwithstanding the immunity granted by Section 308. Moreover, Section 4(8) prohibits the Legislature from enacting any laws that attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.

These provisions are designed to allow the courts to function as impartial arbiters and the last hope of the common man—free from fear, favour, or interference.

A Fragile Independence in Practice

Despite the strong constitutional framework, Nigeria’s judiciary remains vulnerable—particularly through the processes of appointment, removal, and budgeting.

Appointments and Dismissals: A Political Undertone

Sections 231, 238, 250, 256, 261, 266, 271, 276, 281, and 288 of the Constitution vest the power to appoint judicial officers largely in the hands of the Executive, with the Legislature also playing a significant role. Likewise, Section 292 outlines the procedures for removing judicial officers—again involving the Executive and Legislature.

This fusion of powers erodes the independence of the judiciary and leaves judicial officers exposed to political manipulation. The controversial cases involving former Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu and former President of the Court of Appeal Justice Ayo Isa Salami are sobering reminders of how political influence can threaten judicial integrity.

Budgetary Control and Fiscal Dependence

Section 84 of the Constitution mandates that the salaries, allowances, and recurrent expenditures of the judiciary should be drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. Similarly, Section 121(3) provides that state judiciaries should receive funds directly from state coffers.

However, these provisions are frequently disregarded. In a landmark suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013), former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President and human rights activist Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) challenged the ongoing breach of these constitutional mandates. Agbakoba argued that judicial funding should not pass through the Executive, but be paid directly to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

He contended that this dependence on the Executive has led to chronic underfunding, poor infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, and even judicial corruption.

His argument resonates with the lamentation of former Chief Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, who in 2013 decried the steady decline in judicial funding—from ₦95 billion in 2010 to ₦67 billion by 2013. According to her, this shortfall leaves courts unable to perform their constitutional roles effectively, with many court buildings lacking basic research tools such as well-equipped libraries.

Political Interference and Judicial Capture

Beyond financial strangulation, there is a growing concern over the infiltration of the judiciary by political interests. The judiciary has, at times, been reduced to a pawn in the political chessboard, as seen in controversial rulings in states like Taraba, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, and more recently, Abia.

Legal scholars and civil society have called on the Supreme Court and the NJC to defend the sanctity of the judiciary and resist what some describe as the “judicial buffoonery” that threatens the very fabric of justice.

Conclusion

Section 17(2)(e) of the Nigerian Constitution asserts unequivocally: “The independence, impartiality and integrity of courts of law, and easy accessibility thereto shall be secured and maintained.”

To uphold the rule of law and ensure justice, Nigeria must move beyond lip service and implement these constitutional guarantees in full. Judicial officers must be empowered, not enslaved by executive or legislative whims. The call is clear: protect the judiciary, or risk eroding the foundations of democracy.

---

Contact the Author:
Tobi Jude can be reached at tobi.jude@yahoo.com, tobi.jude.tj@gmail.com, or via phone at 07064809512.