Notes on Nigerian State System & Key Institutions

Nigeria's constitution has been frequently changed and has low legitimacy as a result.
The current code-law constitution was created in 1999 but has been amended frequently since.
Example: In 2007, Obasanjo attempted to alter it to allow him to run for a 3rd term as President.
Nigeria has had a series of constitutions since independence.
Many are very detailed and good in theory but often amended and rarely respected in practice, reducing legitimacy in the eyes of citizens and leaders.
This is seen as a sign of democracy.

Nigeria was established as a federal system to accommodate its ethnic diversity.
Originally divided into 3 states, Nigerian politicians responded to ethnic violence and tensions by creating progressively more states.
Today, there are 36 states.
In 1991, the capital was moved from Lagos to Abuja in the center of the country to move power from the Yoruba-dominated south to a more neutral, ethnically diverse "middle belt."
During long periods of military rule, state governments were allowed little power, but since the return of democracy in 1999, they have become more important.
Today, there is a growing debate about the rights of states vs. the powers of the federal government.
Example: Controversy over harsh Sharia-based laws introduced in many northern states and whether the Federal government can over-rule them.

Nigeria initially created as a parliamentary system thanks to the British.
However, ethnic fragmentation meant repeatedly unstable coalition governments and a series of PMs without enough support to stay in power.
In 1979, a Presidential system was adopted in hopes that a directly elected President would provide greater stability and serve as a national, unifying symbol.
The tradition of centralized military rule, fragmented Congress, and Prebendalism/patron-clientism has encouraged a “Strong” Presidential system.

From 1966 to 1999, Nigeria was ruled by a series of military leaders; some took the title of President, but none were legitimately elected.
Some ruled relatively benignly, while others were extremely harsh. Most were very corrupt, enriching themselves and maintaining power by rewarding supporters.
Elections were periodically held, but winning candidates were usually denied power or quickly overthrown by the military.
Since 1999, presidents have been elected democratically – though amid widespread fraud.
President Yar’Adua was the first allowed to take power democratically – and actually keep it!
Under the most recent constitution, presidents are allowed two 4-year terms. (Obasanjo tried to alter the constitution to allow himself a 3rd term but the National Assembly failed to ratify it.)
Military rulers established a tradition of a strong president.
The President is considered Head of State, Government, and Chief Executive.
Powers are similar to the US, Russian, and Mexican Presidents:
- Significant discretionary powers
- Appoints cabinet and many other positions.
- Is at the top of a giant pyramid of rewards.

Until 1979, Nigeria’s legislature was unicameral, but today, the National Assembly is composed of 2 US-style houses, with equal seats allocated to each region.
Under military rule, legislatures were ignored or coerced into supporting rulers, but since the return of democracy in 1999, it has become a more effective check on the power of the executive:
- Example: Despite the PDP’s majority at the time in both houses, Obasanjo was unable to push through an amendment to the constitution allowing him to run for a 3rd consecutive term.
Corruption is common; some fear prebendalism/patron-clientism gives the plurality party of the President too much influence over the legislature.

Similar to Mexico/USA, Nigeria’s president appoints a cabinet (confirmed by Leg.) to supervise the everyday operations of the state.
Though powerful, ministers serve at the President’s pleasure, giving him ultimate authority.
Ministers manage the bureaucracy, which is large but notoriously corrupt and inefficient.
Prebendalism is rampant, as the President, Ministers, and Bureaucrats too often appoint friends to positions and redirect state resources to personal or political gain.
As a result, the bureaucracy cannot be considered a meritocracy.

As self-professed “guardians” of the political system, Nigeria’s military is traditionally very politically active, intervening repeatedly to dominate or shape the government.
When corruption or instability worsened, or generals disliked the political direction, they stepped in to take control.
Frequently corrupt, generals often used power to siphon off billions into private accounts.
When other military leaders became fed up with current ruling general(s), they in turn were replaced in another coup.
Known as “Praetorian Tendency”.
The tendency for military rule indicates a seriously flawed + illegitimate democracy
If the military keeps stepping in, democratic practices are not developed. Leads to more political instability.
Increased likelihood of further military coups… (and so the cycle goes!)

In the first years after independence, Nigeria’s court system, based on common-law, was active and independent, serving as a strong check on the executive.
However, numerous military leaders repeatedly coerced or overruled it, reducing its effectiveness & legitimacy:
- Friends of rulers – rather than trained jurists – were appointed.
- The 1995 conviction + execution of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa showed courts were merely puppets of rulers.
Since the return of democracy in 1999, the courts have worked to restore legitimacy + effectiveness.
It Has had some success but is still not very legitimate or independent in the eyes of the public.
The 1999 Constitution created local, state + national level courts, including the Supreme Court + Federal Court of Appeal.
12 Muslim-dominated states in the north have taken advantage of constitutional provisions allowing separate state courts to Sharia-based courts.
Controversy over harsh rulings (such as stoning for adultery) issued by state Sharia courts can be overruled by federal courts.
Led to further tensions between the Christian South and Muslim North.

The Supreme Court is theoretically empowered to conduct judicial review but has yet to really exercise this power.
Prebendalism and the traditional power of the President have discouraged the court from challenging the executive.
Still, the success courts had in investigating + rejecting fraudulent victories of candidates in the 2007 election indicates growing power + independence.

A relatively balanced federation, with a lingering tradition of centralization due to the military, prebendalism, and the ruling PDP.
A relatively separated Presidential system, though party majority, prebendalism + tradition of strong president tends to concentrate power.