Nigeria’s military interventions in politics between 1966 and 1979, and again from 1983 to 1999, fundamentally altered the legal landscape. Constitutions were suspended or constrained, and governance shifted toward rule by decree. These decrees carried the force of law and frequently included provisions that restricted the ability of regular courts to review military actions.
Civil courts continued to operate, but their authority was limited in cases considered sensitive to national security or public order. In such matters, military authorities often bypassed established judicial processes, creating parallel systems that answered directly to those in power.
The Rise of Tribunals and Special Courts
Military tribunals became a defining feature of this period. Established through executive decrees, these bodies tried civilians and soldiers for offences ranging from corruption and coup plotting to civil disturbances. Unlike regular courts, tribunals often limited appeal rights and operated outside conventional judicial safeguards.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
Although presented as mechanisms for maintaining discipline and stability, tribunals frequently reflected the priorities of the ruling military government. The 1995 trial and execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists remains the most widely known example, symbolising how tribunal justice could be used to impose severe punishment under the appearance of legality.
Over time, these courts reshaped public understanding of justice, shifting it from a process grounded in rights to one defined by authority.
Soldiers on the Streets, Fear in the Air
Beyond tribunals, military deployments for internal security brought soldiers directly into civilian spaces. These operations were officially framed as responses to emergencies, unrest, or security threats. In reality, they often blurred the line between enforcement and punishment.
In several documented cases, communities were subjected to collective retaliation rather than individual investigation. Towns were raided, homes destroyed, and civilians killed following attacks on soldiers or security installations. Events such as Odi in 1999, Zaki Biam in 2001, and later operations in Zaria and Maiduguri revealed a pattern where military force replaced judicial inquiry.
For many communities, the presence of soldiers came to signify danger rather than protection.
Justice Without Accountability
A central feature of this era was the weakness of accountability. Investigations into military abuses were limited, prosecutions were rare, and reparations for victims were inconsistent. Even when government panels acknowledged wrongdoing or issued public apologies, tangible consequences were often absent.
This disconnect between harm and accountability deepened public distrust in state institutions. Courts appeared powerless, while security forces seemed insulated from consequences. Over time, confidence in the justice system eroded, leaving citizens uncertain of their rights and protections
Fear as an Unofficial System
As trust in formal justice declined, fear filled the gap. Many communities learned to remain silent, avoid confrontation, and navigate authority cautiously. In some cases, people turned to self-help, vigilante groups, or mob action, believing official systems would not deliver protection or fairness.
This climate of fear did not originate solely during military rule, but it was reinforced by years in which power overshadowed due process. Even after the return to civilian governance, the legacy persisted in security operations conducted with limited oversight and in public skepticism toward institutions meant to uphold the law.
A Legacy That Still Matters
Nigeria’s return to democratic rule restored constitutional governance, but rebuilding public trust has proven more difficult. Military involvement in internal security continues under civilian authority, raising ongoing concerns about oversight, proportionality, and accountability.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The history of justice without courts illustrates a lasting lesson. When force replaces fairness and speed replaces scrutiny, justice loses its meaning. The consequences extend beyond individual cases, shaping how societies view power, authority, and the law itself.
Author’s Note
Nigeria’s experience reveals that justice is defined not only by laws, but by how power is exercised. When courts are sidelined and force becomes the shortcut to order, fear takes root. The lasting lesson is clear. Justice must be visible, accountable, and trusted, or it ceases to serve the people it exists to protect.
References
Federal Republic of Nigeria constitutional history
Human Rights Watch reports on Nigeria
Amnesty International Nigeria country reports
Oputa Panel findings
Judicial Commission of Inquiry reports on Odi and Zaria
Academic studies on military rule and tribunals in Nigeria
