UNIT 8

CONSTITUTION AND STRUCTURE OF THE NIGERIA MILITARY GOVERNMENT

The Nigerian military government, which took control through coups d'état, significantly altered the constitutional and administrative landscape of the country. The military regimes suspended or abolished the existing constitution, ruled by decrees, and established a centralized authority. See the case of Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western Region) (1971) 1 UILR 201 which challenged the validity of certain decrees promulgated by the military government and the case of Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 552 which highlighted the supremacy of military decrees over existing laws. Nigeria experienced several military coups from 1966 to 1999 and they includes:

1. Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi (1966)
2. General Yakubu Gowon (1966-1975)
3. General Murtala Mohammed (1975-1976)
4. General Olusegun Obasanjo (1976-1979)
5. Major General Muhammadu Buhari (1983-1985)
6. General Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993)
7. General Sani Abacha (1993-1998)
8. General Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999)

STRUCTURE OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT

The structure of the military government in Nigeria generally consisted of:

1. Supreme military council (SMC): this is the highest ruling body, headed by the Head of State.
2. Federal executive council (FEC): this is similar to a cabinet, it comprised military officers and a few civilians overseeing various ministries.
3. Military governors: these governores are appointed to govern the states, which replaced regional administrations.
4. Decrees and edicts: this is where laws were made through decrees at the federal level and edicts at the state level.

STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUDICIARY UNDER THE MILITARY

Under military rule, the judiciary faced numerous challenges, including the suspension of parts of the constitution and decrees that limited judicial powers.

1. Judicial structure: The structure of the judiciary remained largely intact, but its autonomy and powers were significantly curtailed. The major components included:
   
   1. Supreme court: the supreme court continued as the highest court but its decisions could be overridden by military decrees.
   2. Court of appeal: the court of appeal functioned as an appellate court for lower court decisions.
   3. High courts: the high courts operated at the state level with jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters.
   4. Military tribunals: the military tribunals was established to try offenses related to military and certain civil offenses.
2. Administration of judiciary: See the case of Oluyode v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1983) 2 SCNLR 60 where the court illustrated the limitations placed on judicial review under military decrees and decree No. 17 of 1984 which ousted the jurisdiction of courts in certain matters. The major components included:
   
   1. Decrees limiting judicial review: this is where the military decrees often ousted the jurisdiction of courts to review certain actions, especially those related to the government and security.
   2. Appointment of judges: this is where the military regimes controlled the appointment and removal of judges, affecting judicial independence.
   3. Special tribunals: this is where the military regimes established tribunals for specific offenses, sometimes staffed by military personnel and with procedures different from regular courts.

DEMARCATION OF FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT

The military government centralized power, blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The separation of powers was significantly altered, with the military wielding executive and legislative powers. See the case of A.G. Lagos v. A.G. Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1 which highlighted the conflict between state and federal powers under military rule and decree No. 1 of 1966 which established the framework for military governance and centralized power. The functions includes the following:

1. Executive functions: The Head of State, often a military general, combined executive powers with legislative authority. The executive branch under military rule included:
   
   1. Supreme military council (SMC): this council exercised supreme executive and legislative powers.
   2. Federal executive council (FEC): this council implemented policies and administered various ministries.
   3. Military governors: the governors exercised executive powers at the state level.
2. Legislative functions: Legislative powers were concentrated in the hands of the military leadership, which enacted laws through decrees:
   
   1. Decrees: this is where the federal laws were promulgated as decrees, often without consultation or debate.
   2. Edicts: this is where the state laws were enacted by military governors through edicts.
3. Judicial functions: The judiciary continued to interpret laws, but its powers were restricted by military decrees:
   
   1. Limited judicial review: this is where certain decrees ousted the jurisdiction of courts.
   2. Special tribunals: the special tribunals were established to handle specific cases, often bypassing the regular judiciary.

LEGISLATION UNDER THE MILITARY

Legislation under the military was characterized by the enactment of decrees and edicts, which had the force of law. These laws often superseded existing laws and the constitution. The decrees are enacted by the federal military government and had nationwide applicability and the edicts are enacted by the military governors at state level and are applied within respective states.
Legislation during military rule did not follow the democratic process but instead, laws were made unilaterally by the military leadership through promulgation where decrees and edicts were issued directly by the Head of State or military governors and no debate or consultation where unlike democratic legislation, there was no debate or public consultation.
Military decrees often suspended or repealed parts of the constitution and existing laws through supremacy of decrees where military decrees were supreme and could not be challenged in court and legal uncertainty where frequent changes in laws led to legal uncertainty and affected governance. See the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341where while predating military rule, this case's principles on jurisdiction were often tested against military decrees and decree No. 107 of 1993 which is an example of a decree that significantly altered the legal landscape, including the judiciary.

CONCLUSION

The military government in Nigeria brought significant changes to the constitutional and administrative structures of the country. While it maintained some semblance of the existing judicial framework, its centralized and unilateral approach to governance, through decrees and edicts, fundamentally altered the balance of power and the rule of law. The judiciary's powers were curtailed, and legislative functions were absorbed by the military, leading to a highly centralized and authoritarian system of governance.