The controversy surrounding the Edo State Government’s attempt to create a special court for cultism and kidnapping cases raises a question that goes beyond constitutional law and enters the realm of governance.
Why bypass regular order when regular order is readily available?
The stated objective of Governor Monday Okpebholo is understandable. Cultism and kidnapping have become major security challenges in Edo State. Citizens want action. The government wants results. Nobody disputes that the criminal justice system should be more efficient in dealing with these offences.
The puzzle is not the objective.
The puzzle is the route chosen to achieve it.
The Governor of Edo State is not short of legal advice.
His Special Adviser on Legal Matters is Barrister Andrew Adaze Emwanta.
The state’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice is Professor Roland Itoya Otaru, SAN, the chief law officer of the state and one of the most accomplished legal practitioners in Edo.
The Ministry of Justice is staffed by lawyers whose daily responsibility is to advise government on legal and constitutional matters.
Where necessary, the government can engage with the leadership of the judiciary through established constitutional channels.
Given the availability of this legal firepower, one is left wondering why the government chose a path that has generated entirely avoidable constitutional controversy.
The issue is not whether cultists and kidnappers should be prosecuted aggressively.
The issue is not whether criminal cases should be fast-tracked.
The issue is why the government appears determined to avoid the legislative process when it possesses every political and institutional advantage necessary to use it.
The Constitutional Problem
As I argued in my earlier article, Edo State Kidnappers and Cultists Special Court: Much Ado About Nothing? A Constitutional Reality Check, there is a fundamental distinction between establishing a court and administering an existing one.
The Chief Judge can assign cases.
The Chief Judge can create divisions within an existing court.
The Chief Judge can regulate practice and procedure within constitutional limits.
What the Chief Judge cannot do is establish a new court by administrative directive.
That power belongs to the Constitution and, where legislation is required, to the House of Assembly.
What emerged from the recent announcements was therefore not a new court in the constitutional sense but an administrative designation within the existing High Court structure.
If the government’s objective is truly to create a specialised judicial framework with expedited procedures, then there is an obvious constitutional pathway available.
Legislation.
The Missing Institution: The House of Assembly
Curiously, the institution that ought to have been central to this process appears almost entirely absent from the conversation.
The Edo State House of Assembly has not been asked to debate the proposal publicly.
No bill has been presented outlining the structure, powers, jurisdiction, safeguards, or operational procedures of any proposed special court.
No legislative scrutiny has taken place.
No public hearing has occurred.
No statutory framework has been created.
This omission becomes even more difficult to understand when one considers political reality.
The Governor enjoys substantial political control and influence within the House of Assembly.
This is not a hostile legislature looking for opportunities to frustrate government policy.
If the Governor genuinely wanted a statutory framework for specialised criminal courts, the political pathway is arguably easier in Edo State today than at any point in recent memory.
A bill could be drafted by the Attorney General.
The Ministry of Justice could prepare the legal framework.
The House could debate and pass the legislation.
The Governor could sign it into law.
The entire process could be completed within a remarkably short period if political will existed.
Instead, the government appears to have chosen administrative shortcuts over legislative legitimacy.
The Real Concern
The concern is not that the government wants to tackle kidnapping and cultism.
The concern is that due process appears to be viewed as an inconvenience rather than a constitutional necessity.
This is becoming a recurring feature of governance across Nigeria.
The objective is often legitimate.
The method is often questionable.
The law is treated as an obstacle to be circumvented rather than a framework within which power must operate.
Yet constitutional democracies are built on process as much as outcome.
The route matters.
The procedure matters.
The safeguards matter.
The requirement for legislative involvement is not bureaucratic red tape. It exists to ensure transparency, accountability, public participation, and constitutional compliance.
You Cannot Fight Lawlessness by Ignoring the Law
The irony is impossible to ignore.
Government seeks stronger tools to combat individuals accused of violating the law.
Yet in the pursuit of that objective, there appears to be a willingness to stretch, bypass, or ignore established constitutional procedures.
That is a dangerous precedent.
Every government believes its objectives are noble.
Every administration believes its circumstances are exceptional.
That is precisely why constitutional safeguards exist.
Today the target may be kidnappers and cultists.
Tomorrow it could be political opponents, journalists, activists, or critics.
The rule of law must be strong enough to withstand both good intentions and bad ones.
The Better Path
There was never any need for this constitutional controversy.
The Governor had immediate access to senior legal advisers.
The Attorney General was available.
The Ministry of Justice was available.
The House of Assembly was available.
The political numbers were available.
The legislative route was available.
The constitutional pathway was available.
Everything required to create a legally sustainable framework already existed.
What appears to be missing is a commitment to following the process.
That is what makes the entire episode so perplexing.
This is not a case of a government frustrated by institutional opposition.
This is not a case of legislative obstruction.
This is not a case of constitutional uncertainty.
It is simply another example of a familiar Nigerian problem: the failure to follow due process even when due process is the easiest available option.
The tragedy is that proper legislative action would likely have achieved the Governor’s objectives while avoiding the criticism, constitutional questions, and legal vulnerabilities that now surround the initiative.
The lesson is simple.
In a constitutional democracy, regular order exists for a reason.
When government possesses both the legal expertise and political authority to follow that order, there is no justification for bypassing it.
The fight against kidnapping and cultism deserves serious solutions.
Administrative shortcuts are not among them.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 