At independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted a Westminster-style parliamentary system alongside a judiciary rooted in British common law traditions. The new nation’s judicial structure featured regional High Courts, a Federal Supreme Court, and, until Nigeria became a republic in 1963, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London as the ultimate appellate authority.
The courts were expected to safeguard constitutionalism, uphold the rule of law, and mediate disputes among powerful regional governments. Yet, in practice, political rivalries, constitutional ambiguities, and executive dominance tested the judiciary’s independence almost immediately.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
Colonial Legacies and the Legal Structure
Colonial rule had produced a dual legal heritage. Customary and Islamic (particularly in the Northern Region) courts governed local life, while colonial courts applied English law. The 1960 Independence Constitution fused these systems within a federal framework, creating regional judicial hierarchies under a central Federal Supreme Court responsible for constitutional and inter-governmental matters.
Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, a respected jurist who had served as Chief Justice of Western Nigeria, became the first Nigerian Chief Justice of the Federation. His tenure coincided with the Republic’s most turbulent years, as the judiciary was repeatedly called upon to interpret constitutional texts amid political breakdowns.
Under the 1960 Constitution, appeals to the Privy Council remained possible. The 1963 Republican Constitution abolished such appeals but preserved the right for cases already filed before 1 October 1963 to be heard in London, a transitional clause that became significant in later disputes.
Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Disputes
The Western Region Crisis (1962–63)
The judiciary’s first major trial came during the Western Region’s political turmoil. A deep split in the Action Group (AG) between Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Premier Samuel Ladoke Akintola destabilized the regional government. After the Western House of Assembly passed, and then controversially annulled, a motion of no confidence in Akintola, the Governor, Sir Adesoji Aderemi, invoked Section 33(10) of the Western Region Constitution to remove Akintola and appoint Alhaji Dauda Adegbenro as Premier.
Akintola challenged his removal in court, arguing that the Governor lacked the power to act without a formal vote on the Assembly floor. The matter went before the Federal Supreme Court and eventually reached the Privy Council in London in Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963).
The Privy Council ruled in Akintola’s favour, holding that the Governor had acted beyond his constitutional authority. The judgment clarified how constitutional provisions should be read strictly and affirmed that executive discretion must align with parliamentary procedure. This ruling, though delivered from London, strengthened the rule of law and compelled later amendments to regional constitutional provisions.
The case demonstrated the judiciary’s pivotal role in defining Nigeria’s young federal system, and its courage in ruling against executive convenience.
Emergency Powers and the Western Region (1962)
In response to the escalating crisis, the federal government declared a state of emergency in the Western Region on 29 May 1962, invoking the Emergency Powers Act of 1961. The regional legislature was dissolved, and Dr. Moses A. Majekodunmi was appointed as Administrator.
Lawyers, led by figures like F. R. A. Williams, challenged the scope of these emergency powers. In F. R. A. Williams v. Majekodunmi and related “restriction order” cases, courts examined whether the Administrator’s decrees restricting the movement and liberty of politicians were lawful.
While the courts upheld the general legality of the federal emergency proclamation, they struck down several orders that exceeded statutory limits. These rulings affirmed a foundational constitutional principle: even under emergency powers, executive actions remained subject to judicial review. The judiciary thereby established that legality must prevail even amid political crisis, a principle that would later anchor constitutional jurisprudence in Nigeria.
The Treasonable Felony Trial of Obafemi Awolowo (1962–63)
In 1962–63, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and several allies were charged with treasonable felony, accused of plotting to overthrow the federal government. Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo presided over the Lagos High Court proceedings, which drew immense public and international scrutiny.
Awolowo was convicted in September 1963 and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, a verdict later upheld on appeal. Critics argued that the trial occurred in a politically charged climate and that evidence standards were inconsistently applied. However, the trial record shows that proceedings followed statutory rules and no verifiable court transcript supports the widely circulated claim that Justice Sowemimo said, “I had no choice.”
Nonetheless, the case became emblematic of the judiciary’s precarious position, enforcing the law while contending with political pressure and public suspicion. Whether fair or not, its perception as politically influenced left a deep imprint on public confidence in the courts.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Structural Limitations on Judicial Independence
Several systemic factors constrained the judiciary’s autonomy during the First Republic:
- Executive Control:
Judicial appointments and removals were dominated by executive authorities at both federal and regional levels, reflecting colonial administrative traditions and undermining institutional independence. - Constitutional Ambiguities:
Key sections,including Section 33(10) of the Western Constitution and Section 65 of the 1960 Constitution, were loosely worded, leaving courts to reconcile political realities with legal texts. - Weak Enforcement Mechanisms:
Courts lacked effective means to enforce judgments in politically sensitive election petitions or regional disputes, limiting the practical impact of their rulings. - Public Perception:
High-profile cases, particularly the Awolowo trial and Western emergency litigation, polarized opinion. Even impartial judgments were viewed through partisan lenses in a climate of deep political rivalry.
Legacies and Lessons
Despite these challenges, the judiciary of the First Republic achieved enduring milestones:
- It affirmed judicial reviewof executive and administrative actions, even under emergency powers.
- The Adegbenro v. Akintolacase established the Supreme Court (and later, the Nigerian apex court) as the legitimate arbiter of constitutional conflict.
- Pioneering jurists such as Chief Justice Adetokunbo Ademolaand Justice Udo Udoma laid the foundation for a jurisprudence of federal balance and constitutional restraint.
Yet, the era also revealed a sobering truth: constitutions alone cannot guarantee judicial independence. Without political actors willing to respect judicial authority, even well-drafted laws become vulnerable to manipulation.
Why It Matters Today
Many issues that confronted Nigeria’s judiciary between 1960 and 1966 still resonate:
- Emergency rule and executive overreachremain recurring features of Nigerian governance.
- Politically sensitive trialscontinue to test public trust in judicial fairness.
- Perceptions of bias or political capturestill shape citizens’ confidence in the rule of law.
The First Republic’s experience reminds Nigerians that the durability of democracy depends not just on legal texts, but on the moral and institutional strength of those entrusted to interpret them.
During Nigeria’s First Republic, the judiciary stood as both guardian and casualty of constitutionalism. It displayed resilience in cases like Williams v. Majekodunmi and Adegbenro v. Akintola, yet struggled under the weight of executive power and public distrust.
Author’s Note
The courts’ efforts to interpret constitutional principles amid political storms laid the groundwork for Nigeria’s later constitutional evolution. Their story underscores an enduring lesson: the rule of law survives only where judges are empowered, independent, and trusted enough to enforce it, even when it is inconvenient to power.
References:
- R. A. Williams v. Majekodunmi(1962) -Review of emergency powers and restriction orders.
Adegbenro v. Akintola (Privy Council, 1963) – Constitutional interpretation of a Premier’s removal.
Obafemi Awolowo Treasonable Felony Trial (1962–63) – Conviction and sentencing reports.
1963 Republican Constitution – Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council.
Biographical sources on Chief Justice Adetokunbo Ademola and Justice Udo Udoma.
Nwabueze, B. O. Federalism in Nigeria Under the Presidential Constitution (1964).
