Parliamentary power vs. executive overreach: Global examples and Nigeria’s contrast (2)

Nigeria: When laws are flouted, not enforced

THE contrast with Nigeria is stark. Though Nigeria has a democratic constitution with a bicameral National Assembly and state houses, its executives often sidestep the laws. In March 2025, President Bola Tinubu shocked observers by declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State and suspending the elected governor, deputy governor and assembly – actions that experts say have “no support” in the Constitution. The President’s own lawyers concede the Constitution does not allow the president to unilaterally dissolve a state government. Critics warn this sets “a dangerous precedent” that undermines democratic governance. Similarly, at the federal level, Senator Mohammed Ndume (from the President’s party) accused Tinubu of “bypassing the National Assembly” to take on billions in debt for questionable projects, effectively sidelining legislative approval. In effect, Mr. Tinubu borrowed nearly $10 billion outside normal oversight, prompting legal and political outcry but no immediate check.

At the state level in Nigeria, there have been numerous standoffs between governors and assemblies. In Rivers State in 2024, Governor Siminalayi Fubara repeatedly refused to sign bills into law, effectively vetoing legislation on public procurement and assembly staffing. The Assembly responded by invoking the constitution: it held a session without him and passed the bills by a two-thirds majority override. As Assembly Speaker Martin Amaewhule said, the legislature’s action was a “resolute stance against executive overreach”. The Speaker even warned of “potential repercussions” if the governor continued to flout the law. The Assembly emphasized that under section 100(5) of the 1999 Constitution it had the right to override a withheld assent.

Yet in many cases, Nigerian executives simply ignore such rebukes. Governors frequently dissolve local councils or withhold funds despite Supreme Court rulings. For example, the Supreme Court declared that state governments must respect local council autonomy – yet many governors blatantly defy this judgment. The country’s Attorney-General warned that “persistent disobedience to the Supreme Court judgment” on local governments is “tantamount to treason”. Despite this stern language, governors have largely faced no real penalties, and local councils remain dysfunctional in some states.

Consequences of Lawless Leadership: The ongoing executive defiance in Nigeria has grave repercussions. It erodes the rule of law and public trust and triggers political crises and in fact undermines democracy itself. When legislative bodies are ignored or when legislative bodies and democracy are threatened or dominated by the executive.

In Rivers State, for example, the emergency rule and assembly showdown sparked legal battles and deep political unrest. International observers note that without enforcement of constitutional limits, Nigeria risks sliding toward impunity. As one legal expert put it, a leader who “does not acknowledge the law” is sending invitation to chaos. In effect, Nigeria’s pattern of ignoring assembly and court decisions has produced uncertainty and conflict, which is an indirect invitation to chaos.

In contrast to countries like the U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany and India – where legislatures routinely assert authority over the executive – Nigeria’s experience warns how fragile democracy becomes when laws are disregarded. Those other nations’ examples demonstrate that when presidents, prime ministers or chancellors run afoul of law, the legislature or judiciary steps in (through veto overrides, no-confidence votes or court orders) to enforce accountability. Nigeria’s leaders, by contrast, face few constraints; as of 2025 many governors and even the president operate with de facto immunity, often brushing aside constitutional limits without consequences. The result is a weakened parliament, eroded democracy.

To conclude this week’s article, I wish to appreciate the interest of our readers all over the world, particularly the numerous callers, those who sent text messages and emails. Today, I intend to publish some of the comments:

1. William Audu: Dear President, you have presented a good read. Kindly complete it. I was flowing with it when suddenly, it stopped, to be continued. Thanks.

Response: Thank you, we have since completed the series.

2. Stephen Mrakpor: A highly informative write-up. The concise manner in which centuries of traditions and information have been captured in this write-up is very impressive. This write-up throws light on present-day Christianity. I have gained more insight into church history through this write-up.

Response: Thank you for your inspiring comments. It is heart-warming that the series have enriched your knowledge about church history.

3. Prof. Rotimi Williams Omotoye: Good afternoon, sir. I sincerely appreciate your write-up on the process of election of a Pope in the Catholic Church. It is very educative and precise. I read that of last and concluding part today. My interest is when it will be the turn of Nigeria to be elected as Pope! It is not impossible, but the number of qualified Cardinals may need to increase from its present one to about ten. It is the responsibility and prerogative of an incumbent Pope to determine who should become a Cardinal. Only one was qualified as of the last election of a new Pope. Others were above eighty years which did not make them eligible to vote or be voted for in the election.

The three North African Popes were Africans by geographical location. North African Church Fathers are seen more as Westerners than African people. With God, all things are possible. We are anxiously waiting for a time when a Nigerian will be elected a Pope.

Response: I share your concern too. However, it should be recalled that Nigeria was part of the Dark Continent in the 16th Century to the extent that Europeans, with the complicity of the rulers engage in slave trade for many decades before the Christians in England protested and even fought on the high seas against slave traders. At that time, Christianity was unknown to us South of Sahara. It was not until the abolition of slave trade that Christianity was introduced to us in Nigeria.

As of today, the population is dominated to a large extent by  Muslims. As a matter of fact, Christianity was first introduced to the coastal part and gradually spread into the hinterland. It is a fact that up till now, Christianity is the second religion in the country after Islam. When I was in the elementary school in the 30s and early 40s, we had three Christian churches (Catholic, Anglican and Methodist). People were critical of those who aspired to become Reverend Fathers. As of now, Catholicism is practised more in the South-South and South Eastern parts of the country. To become a Pope, you must become a Cardinal under the age of 80. Currently, we have only four Cardinals:

• Cardinal Francis Arinze born on 1st November, 1932 • Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okojie born 16th June, 1936 • Cardinal John Onaiyekan born 29thJanuary, 1944 • Cardinal Peter Okpaleke born 1st March, 1963

From the foregoing, it is clear that only Cardinal Peter Okpaleke who is under the age of 80 years is eligible to vote or to be voted for at the Papal Conclave. Yet, only Cardinals can become Pope and only Archbishop in the nine Archdioceses can become Cardinal. We have only fourteen Archbishops in Nigeria. From the foregoing, it seems clear to me that the future of Nigeria becoming a Pope is in the hands of God. In conclusion, only one person, Cardinal Peter Okpaleke, has the remote chance of becoming a Pope.

READ ALSO: Parliamentary power vs executive outreach: Global examples and Nigeria’s contrast (1)