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.
0 comments: