Introduction

Judicial Review is important as an effective means of securing the legal control of

our administrative process. It is a great and effective deterrent to administrative
excesses and abuses. In man’s unending quest for liberty and freedom, judicial
review is evolved as a means of effectively holding the government and its
functionaries in check and stopping them from trampling on the rights of the
individual. Judicial control appears to be the most effective means of imposing and
enforcing the demands of the rule of law on the administration. It clearly
underscores the relevance of the theory of Montesquieu that if the liberty of the
individual is to become a reality, power should be made to check power – an arm
of government, like the judiciary, and not an individual should be set to oppose
and check another arm of government.
It should be noted that current jurisprudence on judicial review restricts the
concept to the determination of the legality of a governmental measure but not
the merits or wisdom of such an action or inaction. Thus, this work will be focused
on the ramifications of Judicial review both the positive and negative aspects of it
among other concepts.
The Concept of Judicial Review in Nigeria
In Nigeria, judicial review refers to the power of the courts to review and interpret
the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. It allows the judiciary to
assess the legality and validity of laws, regulations, policies, and actions taken by
the government or its agencies. Judicial review ensures that the actions of the
government are consistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
The concept of judicial review in Nigeria is derived from the English legal system,
as Nigeria was a former British colony. However, the power of judicial review in
Nigeria is specifically enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
Under the Nigerian legal framework, the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal,
and the Supreme Court have the authority to exercise judicial review. These courts
have the power to declare laws or governmental actions unconstitutional if they
are found to violate the provisions of the constitution. Judicial review allows the
courts to serve as guardians of the constitution and protect the fundamental rights
and liberties of the Nigerian citizens.
The Nigerian judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring the rule of law,
constitutionalism, and the separation of powers. It acts as a check on the
legislative and executive branches, preventing abuse of power and upholding the
principles of justice and fairness.
Through judicial review, the courts in Nigeria have the authority to strike down
unconstitutional laws, nullify executive actions that exceed the scope of authority,
and provide remedies to individuals whose rights have been violated. Judicial
review promotes accountability, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law in
the governance of Nigeria.
It can be looked upon either as a power or a process. It is the power of the court
or the process by which the court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over the acts
of the executive and legislative arms of government. According to Professor
Nwabueze, judicial review is the power of the court in appropriate proceedings
before it to declare a governmental measure either contrary or in accordance with
the Constitution or other governing law, with the effect of rendering the measure
invalid or void or vindicating its validity…” 1

In general terms, judicial review refers to judicial control of the other arms of
government. In a technical sense, it refers to the judicial control by superior
courts of record typified by the High Court, of both executive and legislative
exercise of powers extending to exercise of powers by inferior courts and
tribunals, such powers being exercised by the superior courts in their supervisory
role. The supervisory jurisdiction of the court is not limited to the executive
branch of government. It extends to the legislative arm of government. Thus, the
Court of Appeal held in Oruobu v. Anekwe & Ors 2 that “by virtue of s. 4(8) of the
1979 Constitution, the Courts have a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of
legislative powers by the legislature and the National Assembly or a House of
Assembly shall not enact any law that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of
the courts.”

Nature & Application of Judicial Review

High Courts have inherent jurisdiction to supervise the proceedings and decisions
of inferior courts or tribunals or those of a person or body of persons charged with
the performance of a public duty. This supervisory power is exercised by way of
what is known as judicial review of administrative action.

In 1977, a uniform, flexible, and comprehensive code of procedure for the exercise
of such power was introduced under Order 53, Rules of the Supreme Court of
England. The Nigerian Federal High Court and many States High Court subsequently
developed comprehensive codes of procedure which are substantially similar to
those in Order 53, R.S.C (now Order 54 R.S.C).

By this special procedure, a person seeking to challenge an administrative act or

omission can apply to the High Court for any of the prerogative orders of
mandamus, certiorari or prohibition or in an appropriate case may seek a
declaration, injunction or damages.

It is important to note that complaints made under this procedure address only the
decision-making process and not the decision itself. Thus, the Court is called upon
to review the correctness of the process leading to a decision and not the merits of
1
B. O. Nwabueze, ‘Judicialism in Commonwealth Africa’, London: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd., 1977) p. 229.
2
(1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 506) 618 at 634-635.
the decision arrived at. It is therefore not the purpose of judicial review to
substitute the opinion of the court for that of the authority constituted by law to
decide the matters in question. That will be a matter for appeal not permitted
under this procedure. Rather, its sole purpose is to ensure that the individual is
given a fair treatment by the authority to which he has been subjected Governor
of Oyo State v. Folayan3; Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans.4

Grounds for seeking Judicial Review:

The decision of an inferior court/tribunal or of a public authority may be quashed

upon an application for judicial review in any of the following cases; Where the
inferior court/tribunal or public authority:

I. Acted without powers (lack of jurisdiction)

II. Went beyond its powers (exceeded jurisdiction)
III. Failed to comply with applicable rules of natural justice
IV. According to the record, proceeded on a mistaken view of the law (error
of law on the face of the record).
V. Arrived at a decision so unreasonable that no court, tribunal or public
authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting
reasonably could have reached it. As in the case of Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation 5

Ramifications of Judicial Review

Balancing powers: Judicial review acts as a check on the exercise of power by the
executive and legislative branches of government. The judiciary has the authority
to review the actions and decisions of these branches to ensure they are within the
limits set by the Nigerian Constitution. By striking down unconstitutional actions or
laws, the judiciary prevents an imbalance of power and ensures that no branch of
government exceeds its authority.
Protection of individual rights: Judicial review in Nigeria is essential for
protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. The Constitution
guarantees certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to a
fair trial, and the right to equality before the law. If any law or action violates
these rights, the judiciary can intervene through judicial review to safeguard the
rights of citizens and maintain a balance of power.
Limiting Executive Power: Judicial review helps prevent the executive branch
from acting arbitrarily or exceeding its constitutional authority. If the executive
takes actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution or infringe upon the rights
of individuals or other branches of government, the judiciary can declare such

3
[1995] 9 SCNJ 50
4
[1982] 1 WLR 1155
5
[1948] 1 K.B 223
actions unconstitutional and nullify them. This ensures that the executive is
accountable and operates within the boundaries of the law.
Legislative Oversight: Judicial review allows the judiciary to scrutinize laws
passed by the legislative branch. If a law is found to be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution, the court can declare it unconstitutional and
invalid. This power ensures that the legislature enacts laws that are in line with
the Constitution and do not violate the rights of citizens or undermine the
principles of democracy.
Promoting Rule of Law: Judicial review reinforces the principle of the rule of law
in Nigeria. It ensures that all government actions and laws are subject to scrutiny
and conform to the Constitution. By holding the government accountable, judicial
review helps establish a legal framework in which the rights and interests of
individuals are protected and the government operates within its legal boundaries.
Checks and Balances: Judicial review acts as a check on the powers of the
legislative and executive branches of government. It ensures that these branches
do not exceed their constitutional authority or violate the rights of individuals. By
holding government actions accountable to the constitution, judicial review helps
maintain a system of checks and balances, preventing any one branch from
becoming too powerful.
Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: The exercise of judicial review can vary in terms
of judicial activism or restraint. Judicial activism refers to instances where the
judiciary actively shapes public policy and interprets the constitution in a broader
and more progressive manner. This can have significant political implications, as
the judiciary may be seen as influencing or even legislating from the bench. On the
other hand, judicial restraint refers to a more limited role for the judiciary,
deferring to the elected branches of government unless there is a clear violation of
constitutional principles. The balance between judicial activism and restraint is an
ongoing debate in many political systems.
Public Policy Impact: Judicial review can have a profound impact on public policy.
Courts have the power to strike down laws or executive actions that are deemed
unconstitutional. This power allows the judiciary to influence or shape public
policy by invalidating laws that they find to be in violation of constitutional
principles or individual rights. This can lead to significant political debates and
discussions surrounding contentious issues such as civil rights, social justice, and
the balance between individual liberties and state interests.
Judicial Appointments and Confirmation Process: The power of judicial review
often leads to increased scrutiny and attention on judicial appointments. The
nomination and confirmation process for judges become politically charged, as
different political actors seek to appoint judges who align with their ideological or
political perspectives. The appointment of judges with differing views on
constitutional interpretation can influence the direction of judicial review and
impact the overall political landscape.
Legitimacy and Public Trust: The exercise of judicial review can impact public
perception and trust in the judiciary. When the judiciary is seen as impartial,
independent, and upholding the rule of law, it enhances the legitimacy of the
court's decisions and contributes to public trust in the legal system. However,
controversial or politically divisive decisions may lead to accusations of judicial
activism or bias, which can erode public trust and fuel political debates around the
role of the judiciary.
Promotion of Equality and Social Justice: Judicial review plays a crucial role in
promoting equality and social justice in Nigeria. The courts have the power to
strike down laws, policies, and actions that are discriminatory or infringe upon the
rights of individuals or marginalized groups. Through judicial review, the judiciary
can provide remedies and protections for vulnerable populations, ensuring that
their rights are upheld and protected.
Socio-Political Transformation: Judicial review can contribute to societal
transformation by addressing social issues and challenging existing norms and
practices. In landmark cases, the courts can interpret the constitution in a
progressive manner, leading to significant social change. For example, the judicial
review of laws that discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, or religion can
contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society.
Public Perception and Attitudes: Judicial review decisions can shape public
attitudes towards contentious social issues. When the courts take a stand on issues
such as human rights, freedom of expression, or cultural practices, it can influence
public opinion and trigger public debates. Judicial review decisions can help
educate the public on constitutional rights and contribute to a more informed and
engaged citizenry.
Rule of Law and Legal Certainty: Judicial review reinforces the rule of law in
Nigeria. It ensures that the government's actions are in accordance with the
constitution and prevents the abuse of power. This provides a sense of legal
certainty to individuals and businesses, fostering trust in the legal system and
encouraging investment and economic development.
Public Accountability and Transparency: Judicial review holds the government
accountable for its actions and decisions. It provides a mechanism for citizens to
challenge unconstitutional or unlawful acts by the government or its agencies.
Through judicial review, public officials can be held responsible for their actions,
promoting transparency and accountability in governance.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial review safeguards fundamental rights
and liberties enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. By striking down laws that
infringe upon these rights, the judiciary ensures that individuals' freedoms are
protected. This contributes to a more rights-conscious society where citizens are
aware of their constitutional entitlements and can seek redress when their rights
are violated.
As mentioned throughout the pages of this work, Judicial review is an essential
component of the legal system in Nigeria, as it allows the judiciary to examine the
constitutionality and legality of laws and actions taken by the executive and
legislative branches of government. However, like any legal mechanism, judicial
review is not without its criticisms and limitations. Here are some of the criticisms
and limitations of judicial review in Nigeria:
Lack of Judicial Independence: Judicial independence is crucial for an effective
judicial review system. Critics argue that the Nigerian judiciary faces challenges in
terms of independence due to political interference, corruption, and external
pressures. These factors may undermine the impartiality and integrity of the
judiciary, affecting the effectiveness of judicial review.
Delayed Justice and Backlog of Cases: Nigeria's judicial system is known for its
significant backlog of cases, leading to delays in delivering justice. This backlog
can significantly impede the effectiveness of judicial review, as timely resolution
of cases is crucial for upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. The
slow pace of justice delivery can undermine public confidence in the judiciary and
limit the impact of judicial review.
Limited Access to Justice: Access to justice is a fundamental aspect of any legal
system. However, in Nigeria, there are challenges related to access to justice,
including financial constraints, geographical barriers, and complex legal
procedures. Limited access to justice can prevent individuals and marginalized
groups from effectively seeking judicial review and redress for rights violations.
Enforcement of Judicial Decisions: Even if the judiciary declares a law or action
unconstitutional through judicial review, the effectiveness of such a decision
depends on the willingness and capacity of other branches of government to
comply with the court's ruling. In Nigeria, the enforcement of judicial decisions has
been a subject of criticism, with instances of non-compliance or delayed
implementation by the executive or legislative branches.
Interpretation of the Constitution: Judicial review requires judges to interpret
the constitution and determine its compatibility with other laws or government
actions. However, differing interpretations of the constitution among judges can
lead to inconsistency and unpredictability in judicial review outcomes. Critics
argue that the lack of a unified approach to constitutional interpretation can
undermine the legitimacy and credibility of judicial review.
Limited Judicial Capacity and Expertise: Judicial review often requires a deep
understanding of constitutional law and complex legal issues. Critics point out that
the Nigerian judiciary faces challenges in terms of limited judicial capacity and
expertise, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of judicial review.
Insufficient training, inadequate resources, and the lack of specialized
constitutional courts can limit the judiciary's ability to conduct robust and
informed judicial review.
Corruption
There is no gain saying the fact that Nigeria is bedeviled with corruption. That
notwithstanding, not all Nigerians are corrupt, including judicial officers.
Corruption is a social malady and it undermines the integrity of an individual or
institution. Despite governments’ anti-corruption policies, the judicial officers are
still involved in corrupt practices, ranging from taking bribes, in order to pervert
justice and not being effective in carrying out their duties as judicial officers. A
corrupt judiciary will hamper the tenets of federalism where matters come up for
adjudication between the central or federal government and the component units.
A corruption free judiciary will ensure fair hearing and justice in other cases aside
corruption cases. The problem of corruption in judiciary is so dangerous that it
demeans the country’s integrity in the comity of nations. Nigeria is adjudged a
corrupt nation and the judicial officers are products of the same system. It must
be noted that not all judicial officers are corrupt. Nigeria should therefore, avoid
giving bribes to judicial officers, as both the givers and the receivers are liable if
caught. Incidences of bribery in the judiciary should as a matter of urgency, be
reported to the law enforcement agencies for appropriate sanction. The common
will continue to suffer if the judiciary is bedevilled with corruption.
It is important to note that these criticisms and limitations are not unique to
Nigeria but can be found in varying degrees in judicial review systems around the
world. Efforts to address these issues, such as strengthening judicial
independence, improving access to justice, and enhancing judicial capacity, can
help mitigate these limitations and improve the overall effectiveness of judicial
review in Nigeria.
Landmark cases illustrating the ramifications of judicial review
Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2004)
18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1 SC:
In this case, the Supreme Court of Nigeria upheld the principle of federalism and
affirmed the powers of the state governments to create and administer local
government areas without interference from the federal government. The decision
highlighted the importance of judicial review in protecting the constitutional rights
and powers of different levels of government.
A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264:
This case involved a dispute between the federal and state governments over the
allocation of revenue from the Federation Account. The Supreme Court held that
the federal government could not withhold funds due to a state government
without a court order. The judgment emphasized the role of judicial review in
ensuring the observance of constitutional provisions and the protection of the
rights of the states.
Olawoyin v. Attorney General of the Federation (1985):
This case centered on the constitutional validity of the State Security (Detention of
Persons) Decree No. 2 of 1984, which allowed for the indefinite detention of
individuals without trial. The Supreme Court declared the decree unconstitutional
and emphasized the importance of judicial review in safeguarding the fundamental
rights of individuals and preventing arbitrary detention.
Registered Trustees of the University of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.
9) 599:
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the courts to review
decisions made by university authorities. The court held that decisions taken by
universities that affected the rights of students or employees could be subjected
to judicial review to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and compliance with the
law.
Onuoha Kalu v. The State (2001):
This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 36(5) of the Nigerian
Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair hearing within a reasonable time.
The Supreme Court held that the right to a fair hearing includes the right to a
speedy trial. The decision underscored the role of judicial review in protecting
constitutional rights and ensuring access to justice.
These landmark cases demonstrate how judicial review in Nigeria has been crucial
in upholding constitutional principles, protecting individual rights, and maintaining
the balance of powers between different branches of government. They illustrate
the significant impact of judicial review in shaping the legal landscape and
ensuring the rule of law in Nigeria.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Judicial review in Nigeria plays a vital role in ensuring the
supremacy of the Constitution, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the rights
and liberties of the citizens. The establishment of the power of judicial review in
the Nigerian legal system has empowered the judiciary to review the actions,
decisions, and laws made by the executive and legislative branches of government.
Through judicial review, the Nigerian courts have been able to check the exercise
of governmental power and ensure that it remains within the limits prescribed by
the Constitution. This process has helped in preventing the abuse of power,
ensuring accountability, and promoting good governance.
The Nigerian judiciary has demonstrated its commitment to upholding judicial
review by rendering landmark judgments that have shaped the constitutional
landscape of the country. These judgments have contributed to the protection of
human rights, the promotion of democratic principles, and the strengthening of
the constitutional framework.
However, it is important to note that judicial review in Nigeria is not without its
challenges. The judiciary faces issues such as delays in the dispensation of justice,
limited resources, and occasional political interference. These challenges can
hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial review process.
To overcome these challenges, it is crucial for the Nigerian government to provide
adequate resources and support to the judiciary, ensure the independence of the
judiciary, and address any issues of corruption or political interference.
Furthermore, efforts should be made to streamline and expedite the judicial
process to ensure timely resolution of cases.
Overall, judicial review in Nigeria remains a critical mechanism for safeguarding
the rights and liberties of the citizens, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution,
and promoting the principles of democracy and good governance. It is an essential
component of the Nigerian legal system that contributes to the overall
development and stability of the nation.