Executive interference in Nigeria’s justice system undermines the rule of law.

Executive interference in Nigeria’s justice system has long been a significant problem. However, it is often misunderstood, as the judiciary has been criticized for lacking neutrality, particularly in criminal justice cases. Many view Nigeria’s governance as a structure where each arm—executive, legislative, and judiciary—should operate independently to ensure smooth administration. This article examines the extent of executive influence on the judiciary in Nigeria, focusing on the challenges to judicial independence within the criminal justice system.

Colonialism in Nigeria introduced modern judicial structures and common law, but the judiciary existed in some form before then. Different ethnic groups had their customary laws to resolve disputes, and colonial rule from 1861 to 1960 saw the formalization of judicial structures as part of the broader administrative framework. After independence in 1960, Nigeria’s judiciary underwent a series of transformations—most notably in the early to mid-1960s and the subsequent military rule that disrupted governance intermittently until the reinstatement of democracy in 1999. Through it all, the judiciary, while often challenged, remained central to legal redress and the protection of rights.

Development inevitably brings challenges. The Nigerian judiciary is no exception, facing its hurdles as it strives to strengthen its autonomy and uphold justice. Constitutionally, the judiciary is independent, and its powers are vested in the courts. Unlike other branches of government, judicial officials are not elected but appointed, with oversight from the National Judicial Council (NJC). This theoretically insulates the judiciary from interference, empowering it to interpret laws and protect individual rights impartially.

However, Nigeria’s federal system is far from a perfect separation of powers. The executive has the power to assent to or reject bills passed by the National Assembly, but the Assembly can override such vetoes under certain conditions. Meanwhile, judicial rulings create legal precedents that shape future laws. The judiciary remains entangled in this web of governmental functions despite being constitutionally independent.

In criminal justice, any crime committed is viewed as an offense against the state rather than against the victim alone, as in civil cases. This raises the issue of executive involvement, mainly through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and state Attorneys General, who wield significant power. The AGF has the authority to initiate, take over, or discontinue criminal proceedings at any stage before a court delivers its judgment, as outlined in Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution.

The executive’s role in criminal justice doesn’t end with the AGF’s authority. Law enforcement agencies, such as the police, operate under executive oversight and are responsible for crime prevention, law enforcement, and the protection of public order. Even when a court sentences someone to death, the execution of that sentence cannot occur without the executive’s approval, further illustrating the executive’s inescapable entanglement in criminal matters.

Despite the essential roles of the AGF, law enforcement, and correctional officers in maintaining public safety and enforcing the law, executive interference in criminal justice remains a persistent problem. One glaring issue is the dual role of the AGF, which is both the Chief Law Officer and the Minister of Justice. In the latter role, the AGF is primarily accountable to the executive, leading to a potential conflict of interest that compromises judicial impartiality. The combination of these two roles blurs the lines between legal and political responsibilities, creating opportunities for nepotism, favoritism, and bias.

This fusion of roles often leads to political interference in judicial appointments, where the principle of meritocracy gives way to patronage. The saying “who you know” becomes a deciding factor in who holds office, eroding public confidence in the judiciary’s independence. Furthermore, while the constitution stipulates that the NJC should receive its funding directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, bureaucratic delays often hinder the timely disbursement of funds, raising concerns about the judiciary’s financial autonomy.

The influence of the executive extends to law enforcement agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The selective prosecution of political opponents and the protection of allies from legal consequences are worrying examples of how executive interference undermines justice. Public interest should be paramount in any democratic society. Still, the discretionary powers of the AGF, particularly the ability to discontinue criminal cases, sometimes trample on victims’ rights, raising questions about accountability and fairness.

Reforms are necessary to address these systemic problems. The judiciary must be strengthened and granted full financial autonomy. For example, former President Muhammadu Buhari’s Executive Order No. 10 in 2020 was a step toward ensuring financial independence for state-level judiciaries, though its implementation remains fully realized. Moreover, the roles of the AGF and the Minister of Justice should be separated to prevent conflicts of interest. These two offices have distinct responsibilities—one legal, one administrative—and merging them only invites political interference in criminal justice.

The AGF’s powers to discontinue criminal cases should also be more narrowly defined to prevent abuse. Some discontinuations are driven by personal or political motivations rather than public interest, which undermines trust in the system.

Civil society and the media must play crucial roles in holding the executive accountable. Public scrutiny is vital to exposing favoritism, nepotism, and bias in the criminal justice system. Each arm of government should serve as a check on the others, but the extent of executive interference in Nigeria’s judiciary has become a dangerous loophole. Judicial reforms, particularly concerning the appointment processes and the separation of key offices, are essential for preserving judicial independence and ensuring fair administration of justice.

In sum, Nigeria’s criminal justice system is at a crossroads where executive overreach threatens the independence of the judiciary. Without meaningful reform, the promise of justice for all remains precarious, and the nation’s legal foundation risks further erosion. Civil society, the media, and the judiciary must continue pushing for accountability and transparency, safeguarding the impartial administration of justice for future generations.