July 17, 2007
Project Report Summary
Although electoral rigging and fraud marred the 2007 elections in Nigeria, the prospects for democracy to flourish in this oil-rich country, which claims the largest population on the African continent, remain high. Rotimi Suberu argues that this is largely a result of the independence of the Supreme Court and its role as a neutral arbitrator in federal-state conflicts. To illustrate his argument, Suberu provides an analytical assessment of 14 cases brought before the Supreme Court regarding intergovernmental disputes between state governments and the federal government. These cases have regarded such contentious issues as natural resources, revenue allocation, local government and urban planning, and the policing of public security.
Suberu asserts that rather than being a "centrist" institution, the Supreme Court has arbitrated intergovernmental disputes in a "bold and balanced manner." In its rulings involving intergovernmental conflicts, the Supreme Court has neither promoted federal hegemony nor state rights, but rather has adjudicated in a neutral manner with an eye toward upholding Nigeria’s constitution. In the 14 cases reviewed by Suberu, seven of the decisions emphasized federal supremacy as stated in the constitution, four of the rulings were in favor of state rights as stipulated in the constitution, and three of the rulings found in favor of both the federation and the state. According to Suberu, the court has been able to maintain its independence and adjudicate in a balanced manner because of its constitutional design, which prevents the executive from directly appointing justices. This process allows the Supreme Court to be insulated from party or partisan control thus enabling it to remain an autonomous and neutral institution. In contrast, the Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria, which was responsible for managing the elections, is far from independent; its members are appointed directly by the executive.
Suberu also underscores the fact that judicial federalism cannot be a substitute for free and fair democracy and development in Nigeria, but rather a conduit to aid in upholding and instilling democracy in the country. He notes, however, that the Supreme Court faces several challenges in its role as an independent arbitrator, including several limits of judicial federalism. The immense ethnic, regional and religious diversity that exists in Nigeria remains a huge challenge to arbitrating disputes. Ethnic, regional and religious divisions often color the issues brought before the court, adding to the contentiousness of the rulings. Other challenges and limits to judicial federalism in Nigeria include: a history under military rule during which the judiciary was undermined; vulnerability of the rule of law as a result of neo-patrimonialism and power politics; the 1999 constitution, often ambiguous or contradictory in its stipulations regarding matters such as resource control etc.; and disobedience or manipulation of decisions by the federal government. Regardless of these challenges, Suberu remains steadfast in his conclusion that the Supreme Court remains a beacon of hope for democracy in Nigeria.
Archived Audio
To listen to audio or to view video, please click on the links provided below. You also can right click on the links and choose "Save Target As" or "Download Linked File." This will save the file to your computer and then allow you to play it in your media player directly. More Audio Help.
Related Resources
