2025: Will Nigeria’s Judiciary Serve as Citizens’ Bastion of Hope?

Nigerians look up to the judiciary as the last hope of the common man in year 2025 flowing from landmark judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in 2024 including that of July 11, when the apex court ordered payment of federal monthly allocations due to Local Government Areas directly into their accounts. Alex Enumah reports.

The judiciary as the third arm of government in Nigeria plays a crucial role not only in the stability of the country but also in the economic and political development of the country. To a large extent, it can be argued that the uninterrupted democratic dispensation of the fourth republic is attributable to the role being played by the judiciary.

However, it should be quickly pointed out that the fourth republic may also be ended by the same judiciary, if genuine efforts are not made to curtail some unsavoury and unreasonable judgements coming from the courts of recent.

The judiciary, particularly the court shape economic, political, social, religious, ethnic and other considerations by its judgements. While the legislature makes laws and the executive executes laws, it is what the judiciary says that is the Law. And this singular role of interpreting the law makes the judiciary appears to have overwhelming influence over the two other arms of government.

In 2024, the judiciary heard and determined several cases that have impacted one way or the other on the nation’s socio-political cum economic development. One of such cases is the landmark judgement by the Supreme Court on financial autonomy of Local Government Areas (LGA) in the country.

The judgement was very crucial because it was at the heart of development at the grassroots. This is because the states over two decades have been disbursing LG’s funds paid into a joint account at their whims and caprices, contrary to constitutional provisions. This conduct of states especially some governors alleged to pocket LG’s allocation after payment of salaries of LG’s staff, was said to be responsible for the underdevelopment and insecurity at the grassroots.

As part of measures to make the local government councils more effective and bring the dividend of democracy to the grassroots, the President Bola Tinubu-led administration had dragged the 36 state governments to the Supreme Court to resolve dispute surrounding the financial autonomy of local government councils.

In the suit filed in May last year by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince LateefFagbemi, SAN, the federal government had accused the state governments of running aground the third-tier of government. According to the federal government, the states by keeping funds duly allocated to the local governments have starved them of needed funds for developing the grassroots and by extension responsible for the high rate of criminalities and insecurity in the country.

In the suit marked SC/CV/343/2024, the AGF therefore prayed the apex court for an order prohibiting state governors from unilateral, arbitrary and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected local government executives. Fagbemi in the originating summons also prayed the apex court for an order permitting the funds standing in the credits of local governments to be directly channeled to them from the Federation Account in line with the provisions of the Constitution as against the alleged unlawful joint accounts created by governors.

Delivering judgement in the suit in July last year, the apex court held that Section 162 (4&5) which stipulated a joint account for state and local governments have been defeated and being exploited by the various state governments hence, the need for an order directing the payments of funds due to the local governments from the federation account directly to the local governments.

In the lead judgement delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court pointed out that Nigeria operates a three-tier system of government where no one tier is subjected to the other. Justice Agim observed that for the last two decades the states have been retaining funds due to the local governments and disbursing same at their whims and caprices, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

While berating the governors for running the LGs as if they were their stooges, Justice Agim warned that the local government was gradually going into extinction by the manner through which it is dissolved and run by undemocratic officials. The apex court further faulted the arbitrary and unilateral manner in which the governors disburse and manage funds belonging to the third-tier of government. Not also spared by the apex court were the various state houses of assembly accused of supporting the governors by enacting laws that put LGs at the mercies of the governors. It was the position of the Supreme Court that the retaining of funds belonging to the LGs have brought unnecessary hardship on the people in the various local government areas.

It was the conclusion of the apex court that although Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution directed the payment of their monthly allocations to a joint account, the aim of that law had been defeated owing to the retaining of the funds by the states and used as they like.

According to Justice Agim, by laying claim to Section 162 (4&5), the governors were using the Constitution to perpetrate unconstitutionality, adding that the Constitution should not be applied in a manner that supports its own destruction.

He faulted the narrow interpretation of Section 162(4) which stipulated that funds of the state and the LGs “shall” be paid into a joint state and local government account, stressing that the governors were using it negatively.

“There is no doubt that the word “shall” will mean that the federal government will pay into the joint state account. But, it has not worked”, Justice Agim said.

To prevent the governors from further exploiting the said law, the apex court held that it is the responsibility of the apex court to make a law serve the interest of the people and the country in general.

“Since paying to the LGs through the state has not worked, the money should henceforth be paid to the LGs directly”, the apex court had held.

On the issue of appointing caretaker committees to take over governance at the local government level, the apex court reiterated its previous judgements wherein it declared such as illegal, unlawful, null and void, adding that state houses of assembly lacked powers to make laws empowering governors to appoint caretaker committees. The apex court subsequently declared that any governor who dissolve any democratically elected local government greatly breaches the Constitution and commits acts of gross misconduct.

Meanwhile, less than six months after the order was issued a scenario has played out in Edo State where the new administration of Governor Monday Okpebholo had last December suspended the elected chairmen and deputies of the 18 LGs in the state for acts of alleged insubordination.

Although, the Minister of Justice, reiterated the position of the apex court, no action has so far been taken against the governor as well as the state assembly.

The coming days however will tell if the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) which Okpebholo is a member is serious with enthroning true autonomy for local councils across the country.

Another landmark event in the judiciary in 2024 is another judgement of the apex court delivered on November 15, wherein the apex court had declared that the anti-corruption agencies such as Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), have legal powers to investigate and prosecute alleged corruption cases of states and local governments. Some states had dragged the anti-graft agencies to court seeking to stop their prying eyes into their expenditures on the grounds that the state did not ratify their establishing acts and as such lacked the necessary powers to investigate and prosecute states over their expenditures.

In the judgement delivered by Justice Uwani Musa Aba-Aji, the apex court however held that laws passed by the National Assembly does not need any ratification by the states of the federation.

“Let me first look at the constitutional provision. The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the Constitution in their argument. Treaty is an agreement reached by two or more countries which has to be ratified. Conventions are agreed by a larger number of nations. Conventions only come into force when a larger number of countries agree.

“Therefore, the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly. A convention would have been ratified by member-state and the National Assembly can make laws from it, which will be binding on all the states in Nigeria as it is the case of EFCC Establishment Act,” Justice Aba-Aji held.

While pointing out that the federating units in a country like Nigeria, do not have absolute power, the apex court held that where an Act or law is made by NASS like the NFIU and its guideline, it is binding on all.

“Any act that has been competently enacted by the NASS cannot be said to be inconsistent. Where the NASS has enacted several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make law to compete with it. The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in conflict with legislative powers of the state assembly”, she had declared.

The apex court subsequently dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.

While the states lost to the federal government in two major cases at the apex court, they however won in the case of revenue and control of lottery activities, as the apex court limited the Federal Lottery Act to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The Supreme Court had nullified the National Lottery Act enacted, 2005, passed by the National Assembly for being unconstitutional.

The apex court voided the Act while delivering judgement in a suit filed in 2008 by Lagos and some other states, challenging the powers of the federal government to regulate the issue of lottery and games of chance across the country.

In a judgement delivered on November 22, a seven-member panel of the apex court, voided the National Lottery Act, 2005 on the grounds that the National Assembly lacked powers to make laws relating to lottery and games of chance. Justice Mohammed Idris, who delivered the unanimous judgement of the court specifically held that such powers belong exclusively to the Houses of Assembly of the States of the federation.

He had held that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(2) & (3) of the Constitution, the National Assembly lacks the powers to make any legislation for the control and regulation of lottery in Nigeria. Making further reference to Section 4(4)(a) & (b) and Part 2 of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, the apex court held that matters relating to lottery are not issues on which the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly have concurrent powers to make laws.

Justice Idris also declared that, having regard to the provisions of Section 4(7)(a) & (c) of the First Schedule to the Constitution, the House of Assembly of Lagos State and other states have the powers, to the exclusion of the National Assembly, to make laws for the regulation and control of lottery within their states.

He further declared that, having regards to the provisions of Sections 4(4)(b), 7(a) and 39, 29(9)(a) of the Constitution, the power of the National Assembly to make laws for the regulation and control of lottery is limited by the Constitution.

The judge also declared that Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act 2005, made by the National Assembly are inconsistent with the Constitution, adding that the National Lottery Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Justice Idris subsequently made an order nullifying in its entirety the National Lottery Act, 2005. Besides, the apex court issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant (AGF), either by himself or his agents or any other agency of the federal government from implementing the provisions of the National Lottery Act within the territories of the plaintiff states.

The apex court further issued another order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant, its agents or agencies of the federal government from continuing to implement or enforce the provisions of the National Lottery Act within the territories of the plaintiffs’ states.

The implication of the judgement is that more funds would now be in the hands of states as the lottery sector was said to have contributed over N200 billion to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2023.

Outside the issue of litigation, another remarkable event in the judiciary was the swearing in of Justice KudiratKekere-Ekun as the second female Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on August 23. She assumed the coveted office following the retirement of former CJN, Justice OlukayodeAiwoola, who attained the compulsory retirement age of 70 years on August 22, 2024. Born on May 7, 1958, Kekere-Ekun will also be one of the longest serving CJN, as her tenure is expected to end by May 7, 2028, when she attains the compulsory retirement age of 70 years. Besides Justice Uwais, who had spent 11 years as CJN from 1995-2006, all others since then have spent between one, two and at most three years, with some not even completing their tenure because of resignation and illness.

No doubt, a lot is expected of the Chief Justice of the Federation, taking into consideration the current state of degeneration of the judiciary. Today, issues of alleged corruption, nepotism, incompetence, among others, have given the judiciary a bad image, especially the manner some judges had handled political cases. Although, Justice Kekere-Ekun had read the Riot Act immediately she came on board, it is only time that can tell if she will match her words with actions.

Would she make a remarkable difference by imprinting her achievements in the sand of times or would she just pass as any other CJN.

Similarly, the 2027 general elections is believed would be a major definer of her tenure as CJN, if she is privileged to conduct it.