When the Court Said “No” and the Military Said “Watch Me”: The Landmark Case of Emmanuel Olatunde Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (West) [1971] By Lawson Akhigbe

The Case of Lakanmi & Kikelomo Ola v. Attorney-General (West) & Others The post discusses a landmark Nigerian legal case, "Lakanmi & Kikelomo Ola v. Attorney-General (West) & Others," which highlights the tension between the judiciary and the military government in Nigeria. Background: Following the military coup of January 15, 1966, Nigeria was ruled by the Federal Military Government (FMG) which issued decrees and edicts without a proper court process. Lakanmi and others were seized of their assets under the Western State Assets Forfeiture Edict, which established a tribunal to investigate individuals and seize their assets. Judgment: The courts, remarkably, agreed with Lakanmi and others, and their challenge succeeded. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor again, laying down some of the most important constitutional principles in Nigerian legal history. Constitutional Principles Established: 1. Military Government Is Revolutionary, Not Sovereign: The Supreme Court made a distinction that the military did not govern by inherent sovereign authority. It came to power through revolution, an extra-legal, factual event, and therefore its authority was necessarily limited by the nature of its origin. The post emphasizes the courage and intellectual rigor of the judiciary in delivering a judgment that challenged the military government's authority. It also highlights the government's retroactive legislative action, which nullified the court's judgment and effectively told the judiciary that it would not be needed.

When “We Had No Choice” Becomes a Legal Doctrine: The Doctrine of Necessity in Nigerian Constitutional Law by Lawson Akhigbe

Nigerian public life has a tradition of justifying questionable legal actions with the doctrine of necessity, a principle originating from the UK's unwritten constitution. This doctrine allows for actions deemed unlawful under normal circumstances if they are necessary to prevent greater harm, such as escaping a burning building. However, Nigeria, with its codified Constitution of 1999, presents a stark contrast. The constitution, seen as the supreme law, renders any act inconsistent with it void. The article questions how the doctrine of necessity can coexist within a constitutional democracy like Nigeria, highlighting the tension between the flexible nature of UK law and the rigid framework of Nigeria's constitution.

The Changing Face of Justice: A Deep Dive into Nigeria’s Judicial Funding Reforms (2024–2026) by Lawson Akhigbe

Nigeria has finally built the legal architecture for a self-sufficient judiciary. The challenge for the remainder of 2026 and beyond is ensuring fiscal discipline. With the judiciary now managing its own billions, the public is shifting its focus from "Why is the court broke?" to "How transparently is the court spending our money?" For the first time in history, the Nigerian judiciary has the tools to be truly independent, now, it just needs to prove it can manage them.

The Great Clacton Escape: Can Nigel Farage Outrun His Own Paperwork? By Lawson Akhigbe

Farage’s latest stunt, abruptly resigning as the MP for Clacton to trigger a theatrical summer by-election is a masterpiece in the fine art of political distraction.

The Cross-Carpeting Clause: A Constitutional Ornament Admiring Itself in the Mirror By Lawson Akhigbe

Godswill Akpabio There is a particular kind of Nigerian comedy that requires no jokes, only a calendar. Take a recent entry: on a Tuesday in late June, the Delta State House of Assembly solemnly declared the seat of Hon. Collins Egbetamah vacant, three months after he left the All Progressives Congress for the Nigeria Democratic …