In mature democracies, the time-honoured practice is that the executives obey and follow the law strictly. In fact and in law, it is a convention to obey the law strictly. This week, I will examine some examples from the US, UK, Canada and Germany where Parliament or Congress has checked executive power and then detail Nigeria’s troubling violations and their fallout.
United States: Congress checks the President
In the U.S. system, Congress holds significant power over the President. For example, Congress has the authority to override a presidential veto. As the BBC noted during the Trump administration, “Lawmakers can override a presidential veto and enact bills into law by mustering two-thirds of votes in both Chambers of Congress.” In late 2020, Congress checked President Trump’s veto on the National Defense Authorization Act by overwhelming margins, forcing him to accept a defence budget he had earlier publicly denounced.
In 1973, the Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s authority “to wage war” and when Nixon vetoed it, Congress made a law against it. That law constrained the President’s military powers and required him to consult with the legislature. This is a clear example of the powers and authority of Parliament (Congress).
Congress also holds oversight and impeachment powers. Though rare, the House of Representatives has impeached sitting Presidents (e.g. Clinton in 1998, Trump in 2019) for egregious misconduct, demonstrating that no chief executive is above the laws of the Congress. Congress also has the power to demand that the President should notify Congress before deploying troops.
United Kingdom: Parliamentary supremacy in action
The U.K. is the archetype of parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament is the supreme lawmaker, and the government must obey its statutes.
Recent crises illustrate this principle. In 2019, Parliament passed the “Benn Act” requiring the Prime Minister to seek a Brexit extension unless a deal was approved by MPs. Boris Johnson’s own ministers. He admitted the government would “comply with the Benn Act,” underscoring that the law binds even a defiant Prime Minister.
In contrast, Johnson’s attempt to suspend Parliament to force a no-deal Brexit was struck down by the Supreme Court as “unlawful, void and of no effect”. The court unanimously ruled that a Prime Minister cannot block Parliament, thereby effectively upholding Parliament’s supremacy. In the U.K., the royal prerogatives of government cannot override statutes passed by Parliament.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE: PDP labels Tinubu’s two years a ‘nightmare’
Canada: Confidence and constitutional convention
Canada’s parliamentary system makes the government accountable to elected legislators. By long-standing convention, the Prime Minister and Cabinet “can continue to exercise authority only with the consent and approval of the majority of the members of the House of Commons,” known as the confidence convention.
In practice, this means that if the government loses a confidence vote — for example a budget or explicit no-confidence motion — it must resign or call elections. In 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority government fell when it lost a budget vote in the Commons. Ministers also routinely answer questions, appear before committees, and must justify their actions to Parliament.
A standing House procedure requires ministers to obtain “royal recommendation” for any spending bills, meaning no money can be spent without legislative approval. In short, Canada’s legislature retains real power. This means that without parliamentary backing, the government must quit.
Germany: The Bundestag and the Chancellor
Germany’s Basic Law (constitution) empowers Parliament (the Bundestag) and limits executive power. Article 67 provides that the Bundestag itself elects the Chancellor and can only remove a sitting Chancellor by immediately electing a successor in the same vote — the constructive vote of no confidence.
As the Bundestag history notes, the Basic Law “assigned key rights and functions to Parliament.” The Chancellor “may be voted out of office by the Bundestag only if it elects a new Chancellor”. This ensures that the Bundestag is the dominant branch. For example, in 1972, Chancellor Willy Brandt was replaced when the opposition successfully proposed Helmut Kohl as new Chancellor in a confidence motion.
Moreover, the Bundestag must pass all federal laws (including budgets), and the government cannot spend or tax outside what is legislated. Parliamentary committees continuously scrutinize ministers, and any major policy (from defence deployments to economic rescue packages) requires legislative authorization. In Germany, the shift of power after World War II was intentional. The Parliament was designed to “scrutinise the Government and to co-govern,” thereby preventing any executive from operating above the law.
India: Robust parliamentary accountability
India’s Westminster-style system also places the executive under strict legislative control. The Prime Minister and Cabinet hold power only so long as they enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha (House of the People). Defeat in a major vote (e.g. the 1979 fall of Morarji Desai’s government) forces a resignation. Parliamentarians actively question ministers in question hour, forcing transparency on budgets, projects or scandals.
For example, during the monsoon session of 2024, MPs pressed ministers on issues from rural employment funding to smuggling and school safety, with ministries providing detailed data and responses.
Any pledge made in Parliament becomes a binding “assurance” under parliamentary rules — every ministerial statement is recorded as such and “must be implemented within three months,” with progress tracked by a parliamentary assurances committee. This means the government is legally required to follow up on promises made on the record.
Joint parliamentary committees also vet legislation and can summon officials; for instance, a committee may investigate a policy or demand action on corruption allegations. In short, India’s legislature not only passes laws but also ensures ministers adhere to them — much as in other democracies, no executive can ignore Parliament without loss of authority. (…to be continued)
Please send comments/opinion to president@abuad.edu.ng
AARE AFE BABALOLA, OFR, CON, SAN, LL.D (Lond.)
and then