Emergency Presidential Power: Judicial Minimalism as a Threat to Nigerian Federation and Democracy
The exercise of emergency presidential power, particularly when met with judicial minimalism, presents a profound and escalating threat to the structural integrity of the Nigerian Federation and its democratic foundations. This dynamic creates an environment where executive authority can expand with insufficient legal scrutiny, potentially unsettling the federal balance of power. The core issue lies not solely in the declaration of emergency powers, which constitutions may permit under grave circumstances, but in the judicial approach that often accompanies such declarations. When courts adopt an excessively deferential or minimalist stance, they effectively remove a critical check on executive overreach, allowing temporary measures to risk becoming normalized instruments of governance.
This judicial reluctance to robustly interrogate the basis and scope of emergency powers undermines the principles of federalism. It centralizes authority in a manner that can marginalize state governments and erode the autonomy that defines a federation. The resulting concentration of power threatens the very democratic fabric designed to distribute authority and protect minority interests within a diverse nation. In this context, the pressure Nigeria abolish certain democratic checks under the guise of security or expediency finds fertile ground, a trend observed in various nations facing internal strife.
The consequences of this imbalance extend beyond abstract governance principles. It impacts national cohesion and the state’s ability to address complex challenges. For instance, while citizens may celebrate as Detty December gets underway with events like a Burna Boy surprises concert, the underlying tensions fueled by unchecked power and regional dissatisfaction persist. Similarly, public discourse often grapples with understanding why bandits are able to operate, with debates frequently circling back to questions of centralized security failures and regional disenfranchisement. Even in other sectors, such as when the health minister denies a crisis, the public’s trust in official declarations is inevitably colored by a broader perception of accountability and institutional integrity.
Ultimately, safeguarding Nigerian democracy requires a judiciary willing to assert its role as a bulwark against the dilution of constitutional federalism. Without this, the emergency power paradigm, softened by judicial minimalism, poses a clear and present danger to the federation’s stability and its democratic future. The enduring challenge is to ensure that all branches of government fulfill their constitutional mandates without encroachment, preserving the balance upon which the nation was founded.
