How Supreme Court Decisions Built Modern Nigeria - Ajulo

Senior Advocate of Nigeria and legal scholar, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, OON, has said the Supreme Court of Nigeria has played a defining role in shaping the country’s democracy, federal structure and human rights jurisprudence through a string of landmark decisions that continue to resonate across generations.

Ajulo, current Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Ondo State, in a widely circulated legal reflection titled “The Eternal Vigil: An Interrogation of Nigeria’s Landmark Supreme Court Decisions,” described the apex court as the “vigilant sentinel” of the Nigerian state, insisting that it has never merely interpreted the law, but has often stood at critical crossroads as a guardian of constitutional order, democratic continuity and social justice.

He said some of the court’s most historic pronouncements are not mere legal precedents, but enduring pillars upon which the country’s constitutional development has rested.

According to him, the celebrated case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) remains the foundation of Nigerian procedural law, having firmly established the conditions under which a court can validly exercise jurisdiction.

Ajulo noted that the decision brought order to a post-independence legal system struggling with institutional uncertainty, stressing that the judgment remains the first authority cited whenever jurisdiction is challenged in Nigerian courts.

He also identified Lakanmi v. Attorney-General, Western State (1971) as one of the boldest moments in the history of judicial courage in Nigeria, recalling how the Supreme Court stood up to military overreach by holding that the 1966 military takeover did not extinguish constitutional order.

He said the ruling remains a powerful symbol of resistance to authoritarianism and a reminder that even under military rule, the rule of law retained moral force.

On electoral jurisprudence, Ajulo said the apex court has repeatedly found itself at the centre of national political storms, citing Chief Obafemi Awolowo v. Alhaji Shehu Shagari (1979) and Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC (2008) as defining cases that exposed the difficult tension between legal interpretation and political stability.

He observed that while the Shagari case generated controversy over the interpretation of constitutional spread, the Amaechi judgment marked one of the most dramatic interventions in Nigeria’s electoral history by affirming party nomination rights over the outcome of the ballot.

Ajulo further noted that the 2023 presidential election petitions once again placed the Supreme Court under intense national scrutiny, raising recurring questions about whether the court can dispense justice in deeply polarised contests without simultaneously being seen as preserving political order.

On federalism, the SAN said the court’s decisions in Attorney-General of Ondo State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) and Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) remain crucial to understanding the evolving balance of power between Abuja and the states.

He explained that while the Ondo decision strengthened the anti-corruption architecture by upholding the constitutionality of the ICPC Act, the Lagos case checked excessive centralisation by clarifying the constitutional limits of federal authority over urban planning and waterways.

Ajulo also praised the Supreme Court’s intervention in social justice, particularly in the 2014 decisions of Ukeje v. Ukeje and Anekwe v. Nweke, which invalidated discriminatory customary laws denying female children inheritance rights.

He described the rulings as a watershed in Nigerian constitutional history, saying they shattered entrenched patriarchal norms and reaffirmed that no custom can stand where it offends natural justice, equity, good conscience and the anti-discrimination provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

He further referenced Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) as a landmark authority on due process in impeachment proceedings, while citing Onuoha Kalu v. The State as the locus classicus on the constitutionality of the death penalty in Nigeria.

Despite hailing the Supreme Court’s record as one of “jurisdictional certainty, military restraint, electoral realism, federal equilibrium and social transformation,” Ajulo warned that the institution still faces serious contemporary challenges.

He said judicial independence remains under pressure, public confidence in electoral adjudication is fragile, and some decisions continue to provoke debates over the limits of judicial activism.

According to him, the apex court’s greatest strength has never been perfection, but persistence.

“The Supreme Court’s greatest legacy is not perfection but persistence; the quiet, cerebral insistence that in Nigeria, law must ultimately triumph over power, custom and convenience,” he stated.

Ajulo maintained that as Nigeria navigates growing political polarisation and constitutional uncertainty, the Supreme Court will remain central to defining the nation’s democratic future.

Continue Reading

Presidency Denies Claims Nigeria Agreed To Accept Foreign Deportees From UK

The Presidency on Saturday dismissed claims that Nigeria had agreed to accept foreign nationals deported from the United Kingdom under a new migration partnership signed during President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to Britain, insisting that the agreement only covers the return of bona fide nationals of both countries.

In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the State House said widespread reports and social media commentary suggesting that Nigeria would serve as a destination for non-Nigerian deportees were false and misleading.

The clarification followed the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on immigration cooperation between Nigeria’s Minister of Interior and the UK Home Secretary on the sidelines of Tinubu’s historic state visit to the United Kingdom, the first by a Nigerian leader in 37 years. President Tinubu was in the UK from March 18 to 19 at the invitation of King Charles III, in a visit both governments described as a major diplomatic milestone. 

According to the Presidency, the agreement was designed to strengthen bilateral cooperation on safe, regulated migration, while also tackling irregular migration and related cross-border offences in line with the immigration laws of both countries and applicable international treaties.

Onanuga stressed that “nowhere in the 12-page memorandum is Nigeria required to accept foreign nationals other than Nigerians.” He said any person to be repatriated under the arrangement must pass through “multiple levels of identification and verification” before removal can be approved.

He added that where mistakes occur and a returnee is later found not to be a national of the receiving country, such a person would be returned to the requesting country at that country’s cost, in line with the provisions of the agreement.

The Presidency said the MoU provides that both Nigeria and the UK will work together only for the “dignified return of their nationals” who no longer have the legal right to enter or remain in the territory of the other country.

It further noted that the agreement expressly requires that returnees must be treated with dignity and respect, with due regard to their human rights and fundamental freedoms, while law enforcement agencies in both countries are expected to act to protect the welfare of affected citizens and reduce conflict triggers linked to migration issues.

Defending the pact, the State House also said the new framework offers stronger protections for returnees than previous arrangements, including provisions allowing them to travel with their legally acquired personal belongings and make adequate arrangements for the transfer or disposal of property before removal.

The Presidency also pointed to clauses allowing individuals facing deportation to pursue claims under relevant **domestic or international human rights laws**, especially in cases where the person has lived lawfully in the requesting country for most of their life or may face serious reintegration challenges in the country of return.

On the documentation process, the State House rejected suggestions that Nigeria had surrendered immigration control to the UK, saying the agreement clearly provides that it remains the sole responsibility of the Nigeria Immigration Service to issue and manage any Nigerian documentation required for returnees under Nigerian law.

The statement also highlighted reintegration support for returnees, including airport reception, temporary accommodation, onward transportation, documentation assistance, counselling services and possible access to education, entrepreneurship and vocational support programmes to help them settle back into society.

According to the Presidency, the latest MoU is not entirely new, noting that similar migration and returns agreements were previously entered into by both countries in 2012, 2017 and 2022. It said the current deal is for an initial five-year period, renewable by mutual agreement.

The Federal Government had, even before the state visit, indicated that Nigeria and the UK were already working to update existing migration management and returns arrangements as part of broader security and justice cooperation between both countries. Recent official and media reports had shown both governments moving to deepen collaboration on migration, border security and criminal justice matters.

The Presidency therefore urged media organisations and members of the public to seek clarification on sensitive diplomatic matters before publishing reports capable of misleading Nigerians.

Continue Reading

AFCON Row: George Weah Blasts CAF, Says Football Must Be Won On The Pitch

Former Liberia President and 1995 Ballon d’Or winner, George Manneh Weah, has condemned the Confederation of African Football’s decision to strip Senegal of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations title and award the trophy to Morocco, describing the move as a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of African football.

In a strongly-worded statement dated March 18, 2026, Weah faulted CAF’s post-match decision to overturn the outcome of the controversial AFCON final between Senegal and host nation Morocco, insisting that football must be decided on the pitch and not in the committee room. Senegal had originally defeated Morocco 1-0 after extra time in the January 18 final in Rabat following chaotic scenes in stoppage time, when the Teranga Lions briefly walked off the pitch in protest over a late penalty awarded to Morocco. Although Morocco eventually missed the spot-kick and Senegal went on to win the match, CAF’s Appeal Board this week overturned the result and awarded Morocco a 3-0 win by forfeit, a decision that has triggered outrage across the continent and prompted Senegal to head to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Reuters, AP and The Guardian reported that the ruling came nearly two months after Senegal’s on-field victory and has already sparked fierce backlash in Senegal, with the country’s football federation and government denouncing it as unjust and vowing legal action.

Relying on Law 5 of the FIFA Laws of the Game, Weah argued that the referee remains the final authority on decisions during a match and that once the game was allowed to continue and was completed, the result on the field ought to stand. According to him, the referee’s report reportedly treated the incident as a stoppage rather than a forfeiture, making CAF’s later intervention both questionable and damaging to the sport’s credibility. “Football must be decided on the pitch, not re-decided after the final whistle,” Weah said, warning that allowing committees to overturn completed matches could create a slippery slope where post-match officials begin to override on-field decisions. He further described the ruling as a “travesty” that has “scarred and blemished African football,” while urging CAS and other relevant authorities to act swiftly to ensure the decision does not stand. Weah also dismissed viral social media posts alleging that he supported CAF’s verdict, saying such claims were false and cautioning those circulating his image alongside such narratives to desist. The controversy stems from CAF’s interpretation of Senegal’s temporary walk-off as a breach of tournament regulations, even though the final was completed and the trophy had initially been awarded to the West Africans.

Continue Reading