KABIRU HAUWA

FACULTY OF LAW

COURSE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [PUL 201]

TITLE
THE IMPACT OF MILITARY COUPS ON THE NIGERIAN LEGAL
SYSTEM: A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

16th January, 2024.

Abstract
Since gaining independence from British colonial rule in 1960, Nigeria has been marked
by a series of coup attempts and successful overthrows that have significantly influenced
its political landscape. These events have left an enduring impact on the country's legal
system, giving rise to profound legal and constitutional challenges with far-reaching
consequences. This term paper delves into the history of coup d'état in Nigeria,
scrutinizing major coups and their aftermath concerning the nation's legal framework.
The primary objective is to assess the consequential issues encountered by the Nigerian
legal system in the aftermath of these coups, such as the erosion of constitutional

1|Page
principles, suspension of human rights, and the consolidation of military influence over
the judiciary. Through a thorough examination of these challenges, the paper seeks to
unravel how coup d'état has disrupted the rule of law and legal institutions in Nigeria.

Understanding the historical context of coup d'état in Nigeria and its repercussions on the
legal system is imperative for comprehending the intricate dynamics of power and
governance in this populous African country. By tracing the trajectory of these events
and scrutinizing their legal implications, valuable insights can be gained into the
challenges faced by Nigeria as it endeavors to establish a transparent and effective legal
framework that upholds democratic principles and the rule of law.

Embarking on this exploration, it becomes evident that the history of coup d'état in Nigeria
has profoundly shaped the trajectory of its legal system. Through a critical examination
of major coup attempts and their aftermath, this term paper aims to shed light on a
significant chapter in Nigeria's political and legal history.

Table of content
1. Coup d’état: Unconstitutional Seizure of Power.

2. January 15th 1966 military coup d’état in Nigeria.

3. Counter-coup of 29th, July 1966.

2|Page
4. 1975 coup d’etat and the 1976 coup attempt.

5. December 31st 1983 coup d’etat.

6. August 27th 1985 military coup d’etat.

7. November 17th 1993 coup d’etat.

8. Structures in the military rule, [The executive legislative and judiciary].

9. Conclusion.

Coup d’état: Unconstitutional Seizure of Power

A coup d’état is a sudden, often violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a
government by a small group of people. It is typically an illegal, unconstitutional seizure
of power conducted by a dictator, a guerrilla military force, or an opposing political

3|Page
faction1. The term comes from the French language, literally meaning “blow of state”.
The coup d’état is usually carried out with the aim of overthrowing the existing
government, which is often accused of bad politics, corruption, or inefficiency.
The consequence of change of government by extra-legal or extra-constitutional means
e.g. coup d’etat in ordinary grammatical usage refers to the result or end effect or impact
or aftermath of the change of government by extra-legal or extra-constitutional means.
Extra-constitutional or extra-legal means not authorized by or based on a constitution or
law, or beyond the provisions of a constitution or law. When a group of individuals
attempt to seize power by force, in order to remove the legitimate government, if they
succeed, their revolutionary government is valid and their deed is not punished. But if
the revolutionaries fail, if the order they have tried to establish remains inefficacious, then
their undertaking is interpreted as an illegal act, as the crime of treason which is
punishable2.

January 15th 1966 military coup d’état in

Nigeria.
The January 15th military coup in Nigeria was a significant event in the country’s
history. On January 15th, 1966, a group of army majors and accomplices of the
Nigerian military overthrew the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister
Tafawa Balewa in a violent military coup this was the first military coup in Nigeria.3
The military came into governance riding on the excuse of corruption by the civilians and
bad politics. According to the majors, the men at the helm of affairs were running Nigeria
aground with their corrupt ways and the ministers under their leadership were enjoying
extravagant lifestyles and embezzling public funds, at the expense of ordinary citizens.
The coup was primarily orchestrated by a group of young military officers led by Major
Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu. The main objectives of the coup were to eliminate
perceived corruption and abuse of power within the political leadership.
The coup resulted in the deaths of several political leaders, including Prime Minister
Balewa, Premier of the Northern Region Sir Ahmadu Bello, and Premier of the Western
Region Chief Ladoke Akintola.

The coup was particularly directed against politicians from the Northern and Western
regions of Nigeria, whom the coup plotters accused of corruption and mismanagement.

1Longley, Robert. "What Is a Coup d’etat? Definition and Examples." ThoughtCo, Oct. 5, 2021, thoughtco.com/what-is-a-coup-d-
etat-4694507.
2
See Section 37 of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria
3
Teslim Omipidan. (January 15, 2020). Jan 15 In Nigeria’s History: First Military Coup in Nigeria was staged. OldNaija. Retrieved
from https://oldnaija.com/2020/01/15/today-in-nigerian-history-first-military-coup-in-nigeria-on-jan-15-1966.

4|Page
Following the coup, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, the highest-ranking army officer
unaffected by the rebellion, assumed power as the new Head of State. The Nigerian
constitution was suspended through the promulgation of (Constitution Suspension and
Amendment) Decree No.1 of 1966. The decree was issued by General Johnson Aguiyi-
Ironsi himself, the decree not only halted various constitutional provisions but also
imposed a ban on all political parties4 so there was no opposition. This marked the
establishment of a new military government, with the formation of a governing body
known as the Supreme Military Council5. The Supreme Military Council was made up of
military officers, and it was responsible for making decisions on behalf of the country.
The suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of the Parliament meant that the
country was no longer being governed by elected officials also ban on political parties
was also a significant move, as it meant that there was no opposition to the government.

The coup marked the start of a long period of military rule in Nigeria, leading to the
deaths of key political figures and triggering events that increased instability. It also
worsened ethnic tensions, especially between the Igbo and other groups, setting the
stage for the Nigerian Civil War in 1967.

The Counter-Coup of July 29th, 1966.

The Ironsi military administration was in power from January 15th, 1966 to July 29th,
1966. When Yakubu Gowon then, came to power following a counter-coup that overthrew
Aguiyi Ironsi. The July 29 Counter-Coup was motivated by the northern officers' desire to
restore power to the northern region and avenge the assassination of their colleagues in
the January coup. Many northern officers saw the January coup as a direct attack on the
political dominance and interests of the northern region, particularly following the
assassination of prominent northern leaders such as Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa
Balewa and Premier of the Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello. The July 29 Counter-Coup
further intensified the existing ethnic and regional tensions within Nigeria, particularly
between the northern and southern regions. The events of 1966 deepened ethnic and
regional divisions in Nigeria, setting the stage for the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970)6,
also known as the Biafra War. The war was fought primarily between the secessionist
state of Biafra, led by Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu (an Igbo leader), and the Nigerian
government led by General Yakubu Gowon. The conflict had devastating consequences,
including a significant loss of life and widespread suffering.

4
"Major General Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi." Facts Nigeria, https://www.facts.ng/people/major-general-johnson-aguiyi-ironsi.
5
Eric Teniola. "History and the Future of Decree 34 of 1966." The Guardian, 04 September 2017,
https://guardian.ng/opinion/history-and-the-future-of-decree-34-of-1966/.
6
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia (2023, August 12). Christopher Okigbo. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Christopher-Okigbo

5|Page
The July 29th, 1975 coup d’etat and the 1976 coup attempt.
By the early 1970’s, Gowon’s tardiness in returning to democracy and inability to affect
economic stability was becoming evident. He failed to control inflation, economic
maladministration including the oil proceeds. These weaknesses let to another coup, a
bloodless one for a change, by reform-oriented officers. The 1975 Nigerian coup d'état
was a non-violent military takeover orchestrated by a group of junior armed forces
officers, led by Colonel Joseph Nanven Garba. The coup was officially declared through a
broadcast on Radio Nigeria, leading to the peaceful removal of Yakubu Gowon from power
and the subsequent rise of Murtala Muhammed to a leadership position. General Murtala
Muhammed announced the return to civilian government in four years and undertook a
cleansing operation within the military, dismissing those charged with corruption. The
Murtala administration, in addition to its efforts to cleanse the military, made impactful
decisions with lasting consequences for Nigeria's socio-economic and political landscape.
Notably, Murtala initiated the creation of a new constitution for the country, appointing a
50-member committee led by Chief Rotimi Williams. The committee was set up to draft
a new constitution for the country as part of the preparation towards handing over to a
democratically elected government in 1979. This decision made just three months into
his tenure7, demonstrated Murtala’ s commitment to transitioning Nigeria back to civilian
rule. The choice of Rotimi Williams and other legal eggheads like Awolowo revealed the
readiness of the government to work with the right persons as the job was well delivered
even though Murtala did not live to witness the success of his lofty idea. The new
constitution became a strong instrument that helped to guide the operations of
government at all levels. That the military suspends the constitution each time they take
over power is enough to doubt the reasons often adduced for their intervention in politics.
The Murtala regime left its mark as the first to give muscle to the sacredness of the
constitution as one of the instruments of running a functional state. While it appeared to
some that efforts were made to encourage the participation of people across the country
to discuss the draft document8, substantive input came almost exclusively from the
Constitution Drafting Committee and the Supreme Military Council.9 Even though the
constitution was a good legacy of the Murtala/Obasanjo administration, the top-to bottom
approach which is a colonial legacy subsisted throughout the process that saw to the
eventual enactment of the constitution.

7
R. SUBERU, Nigeria’s Permanent Constitutional Transition: Military Rule, Civilian Instability and ‘True Federalism’ in a Deeply
Divided Society, in: Canada: Forum of Federation – The Global Network on Federalism and Devolved Governance, Occasional Paper
Series Number 34, 2019, pp. 1–25
8
O. OYEDIRAN (ed.), The Nigerian 1979 Election, Lagos 1981
9
; J. SIMPKINS, The Role of Constitution-Building Processes in Democratization, Case Study Nigeria, in: International IDEA
Democracy-Building & Conflict Management (DCM), 2004, pp. 1–4

6|Page
On 13 February 1976, Muhammed was assassinated in a coup attempt the coup was led
by a group of officers who called themselves "young revolutionaries" in a radio broadcast;
however, they lacked both civilian and military support10. The Nigerian government
reported that the coup had been led by Lieutenant Colonel Bukar Suka Dimka and had
aimed at restoring Gowon's regime11. However, the coup ended in a failure for the Gowon
camp and Muhammed was succeeded by his deputy Lieutenant Colonel Olusegun
Obasanjo becoming the first head of state of Nigeria from the Yoruba ethnic group. Of
all of Murtala Muhammad’s actions as the head of the military government, the one that
had the most lasting effect was the transition to civilian rule that he initiated before his
death, even though it was brought to completion by his successor, General Olusegun
Obasanjo. The stages of the transition agenda included the creation of more states, local
government reformation, a new constitution, and reformation of local and foreign policy.
General Obasanjo returned government to civilians effective 1st October, 1979 led by
Alhaji Shehu Shagari12.

December 31st 1983 coup d’etat.

The Second Republic began with the election of Alhaji Shehu Shagari as the President of
Nigeria in 1979. The political system adopted was a presidential system, and the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was promulgated to guide the conduct of
government affairs. However, the civilian government during this period faced numerous
challenges, including allegations of corruption, economic mismanagement, and political
instability.The civilian government proved unable to address the country's issues
effectively. This situation paved the way for another military intervention. Despite the
constitutional injunction under Section 1(2) that prohibited the forcible seizure of power,
On 31 December 1983, a group of senior military officers led a coup which ended
the Second Nigerian Republic13 The coup deposed the democratically elected government
of President Shehu Shagari and brought in Major General Muhammadu Buhari as the new
head of state. The 1983 coup in Nigeria was led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari,
who promised to tackle corruption, restore discipline, and revive the economy Buhari’s
government implemented strict economic measures, including anti-corruption campaigns
and austerity measures, to address the economic challenges facing the country. However,
this military regime however quickly lost admiration when it refused to pledge a quick

10
"Nigeria: A Coup Fails". The New York Times. 16 February 1976. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 28 May 2022
11
"Nigeria Arrests Leader of Coup". The New York Times. 7 March 1976. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 28 May 2022
12
See Awolowo v Shagari (1979) All NLR (1990) 120.
13
Udo, Augustine (1985). "Class, Party Politics and the 1983 Coup in Nigeria". Africa Spectrum. 20 (3): 327–338. ISSN 0002-
0397. JSTOR 40174220

7|Page
return to democracy and failed to revive the economy. In the aftermath of the coup, the
military regime, under Buhari's leadership, promulgated the Constitution (Suspension and
Modification) Decree of 198414. This decree effectively suspended the 1979 constitution
and granted the military government sweeping powers to modify existing laws and
institutions. It centralized authority in the hands of the military leadership.

August 27th 1985 military coup d’etat.

On 27 August, 1985 the government of General Buhari was overthrown by a palace coup
organized by his Chief of Army Staff, General Ibrahim Babangida. He justified the coup
by saying that Buhari failed to deal with the country’s economic problems and promised
“to rejuvenate the economy ravaged by decades of government mismanagement and
corruption.” Under General Ibrahim Babangida’s regime, the name of the supreme
lawmaking body was changed from Supreme Military Council to the Armed Forces Ruling

Council (AFRC). There was also a new Armed Forces Consultative Assembly, formed in
1989, which functioned as an intermediate legislative chamber between the AFRC and
the rest of the military. Babangida promised to address the economic challenges facing
the country and initiate political reforms. He also pledged to transition the country back
to civilian rule under third republican constitution15. The constitution of the Third Republic
of Nigeria was drafted in 1989 and was the climax of the workings of a constituent
assembly. In the spring of 1989, Babangida lifted the ban on political activities that had
been in place since the 1983 coup. Promising an end to military rule, he initially set a
target for 1990, later revised to 1993. During the period from 1990 to 1992, state and
national legislative elections were conducted, and in June 1993, a presidential election
took place. Chief Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party emerged as the apparent
winner. However, fueled by a desire to prolong his hold on power, Babangida annulled
the election, citing alleged election rigging, and refused to declare its results. This decision
sparked widespread public outcry, compelling Babangida to resign from office in august
and passed on power to an interim civilian government led by Ernest Shonekan.

14
http://www.commonlii.org/ng/legis/num_act/cotfroncrd721/
15
NIGERIA: parliamentary elections Senate, 1992". archive.ipu.org. Retrieved July 4, 2023

8|Page
November 17, 1993 coup d’etat.

This potential third republic was quickly ousted on 17 November 1993 by Brigadier Sani
Abacha, the defense minister. The 1993 Nigerian coup d’état was a bloodless military
coup. The Armed Forces, headed by Defense Minister General Sani Abacha, forced
Interim President Chief Ernest Shonekan to resign16 and then assumed power as the new
head of state. Shonekan had assumed the interim presidency on August 26, 1993,
succeeding General Ibrahim Babangida as head of state, in the aftermath of Babangida’s
annulment of the 12 June 1993 presidential election. In September 1994, General Sani
Abacha, the then Head of State of Nigeria, issued a decree known as Decree Number
2 of 198417. This decree effectively placed his government above the jurisdiction of the
courts18, granting him and his administration sweeping powers and immunity from legal
challenges. The decree gave General Abacha’s government the authority to override
judicial decisions and legal proceedings, essentially consolidating absolute power within
his regime. Another decree gave him the right to detain anyone for up to three months
without trial. This decree was used to detain several individuals who were critical of the

Abacha regime, including journalists, human rights activists, and political opponents19.
This decree was widely criticized by the international community and human rights
organizations. The decree was seen as a move to suppress opposition and consolidate
power. General Sani Abacha ruled Nigeria as a military dictator from 1993 until his death
in 1998. After his death, General Abdulsalami Abubakar took over as the head of state
and initiated a transition to civilian rule. The transition process began with the release of
political prisoners and the establishment of a National Electoral Commission to oversee
the transition. In 1998, the regime announced a timetable for the transition to civilian
rule, which included the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of elections at the
local, state, and federal levels. The transition reached its conclusion in the election of
Olusegun Obasanjo as president in 1999. The transition to civilian rule was a defining
moment in Nigerian history, representing the beginning of the longest, uninterrupted
government since independence in 1960.20

16
Ojo, Bamidele A. (1998-01-01). Nigeria's Third Republic: The Problems and Prospects of Political Transition to Civil Rule
Publishers. ISBN 9781560725800
17
State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No.2 of 1984.
18
Gros, Jean-Germa (24 September 1998). Democratization in Late Twentieth-Century Africa: Coping with Uncertainty: Coping with
Uncertainty. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-37090-8.
19
The State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No.2 of 1984 permitted indefinite detention without trial.
20
John Campbell and Jack McCaslin. “Abacha, Abiola, and Nigeria’s 1999 Transition to Civilian Rule.” Council on Foreign Relations.
November 21, 2019

9|Page
The Structures in the military rule.

THE EXECUTIVE/LEGISLATURE
The military administration operated as a central government, wherein authority
emanated from a single individual or a designated group. They utilized state
administrations to run the federating units of the country, appointing trusted and loyal
personnel to oversee each state. The branches of government, namely the
executive/legislature and the judiciary, were consolidated under this military
administration.21 The executive powers at both the federal and state levels were unified
under the Head of State, while the State Administrator oversaw the governance at the
state level.22 The different military juntas had names for their executive arm; like the
Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC), Supreme Ruling Council (SRC), National Council of
State, and National Council of Ministers. The AFRC and the SRC were the highest
decision-making bodies followed by the National Council of State and the National
Council of Ministers23. The Rule of Law is one of the most basic concepts of public law
and it is synonymous to law and order. It means that nobody should be above the law
and there must be equality of all before the law, subject however to some modifications.
The Military administration had no respect whatsoever for the rule of law. In fact, during
this period, law and order broke down thus endangering state security. This can be seen
in the way and manner of coming into power by forceful subjugation and replacement
of a pre-existing order in a way that is in flagrant violation of the constitutional provisions
on how the country shall be governed.24The Military promulgated under section 3(1) of
Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 1, 1966 that “the Federal Military
Government shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government
of Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to any matter whatsoever.” It also
promulgated in section 5 of Decree 107 (1993) that “No question as to the validity of
any of the Decrees shall be entertained by any court of law in Nigeria”. This provision
made it clear that the old order of the rule of law had changed giving way to arbitrary
rule by decrees. But in the case of Lakanmi v A.G West25, the Supreme Court held that
a decree of the Federal Military Government was invalid as a legislative exercise of
judicial powers. The Military Government immediately after the judgment promulgated
the Federal Military Government (Suspension and Enforcement of Powers) Decree No.
28 of 1970 which declared the judgment of the Supreme Court null and void and of no
effect whatsoever since the judgment was made to declare a decree or an edict invalid.

21
See Section 3(1) and Section 6(1) of Decree 107 1993.
22
Military Gov., Ondo v. Adewumi (1988) 3 N.W.L.R (Pt. 82) 280; Ojokolobo v. Alamu (1987) 2 NW.LR. (Pt. 61) 377.
23
See Sections 8(2) & 11 of Decree 107 1993.
24
See Section 1(2) (1979) and (1999) Constitutions.
25
Lakanmi and Anor v. Attorney-General, Western State and Ors. (1971).

10 | P a g e
The military made frontal attacks on the fundamental rights of citizens with some of the
decree they promulgated to reduce the liberties enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria.
Some of those anti-human rights promulgations included:

1. State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No. 2 of 1984. This was to allow
arbitrary detention without trial for months and years against constitutional
temporary freedom during trial (bail).

2. Public Order (Bar to Certain Proceedings) Decree No. 41 of 1970. This was to
prevent access to Court and denial of access to justice.

3. Political Parties (Dissolution) Decree No. 9 of 1984 to restrict associations for

political reasons.

4. Forfeiture of Assets Miscellaneous Decree 1990 with which they took properties
of citizens without payment of compensation or compliance with any law that
appealed to reason and equity.

5. They constituted military courts to try persons they felt were against their
administration without recourse to conventional courts in the land.

6. They made appeals from Military Tribunals not possible. See section 4 of the
Public Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree which provided that
“no appeal shall lie from a decision of any tribunal established under the
Decree.” Similarly, The Exchange Control (Anti-Sabotage) Decree provided in
like manners.

7. They could make decrees retrospective and retroactive. For example, the
Exchange Control (Anti-sabotage) Decree 1973 which was promulgated on 8th
may, 1977 and was deemed to have come into operation on 29/7/75, i.e. more
than 2 years before the date of promulgation26.

THE JUDICIARY DURING MILITARY ERA

The Military Tribunals were composed of military members and retired Judge or Justice
with the majority decision taking precedent since the members were already majority

26
Constitutional Law 1. Course Code: LAW 201. [Notes II] by ThankGod Okeokwo Esq.

11 | P a g e
military, they would take decisions for the Judge or Justice to just read out the judgment.
Where a citizen approached the Court for violations of their rights, the military would,
by a decree, oust the jurisdiction of such Court to hear the matter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the examination of the impact of military coups on the Nigerian legal
system reveals a complex and enduring legacy that has shaped the constitutional
landscape of the nation. The historical analysis undertaken in this paper demonstrates
that military interventions have left indelible marks on the principles that underpin the
legal framework of Nigeria. The erosion of constitutional principles, suspension of human
rights, and the consolidation of military influence over the judiciary have posed significant
challenges to the rule of law.

As we reflect on the constitutional analysis presented, it becomes evident that the scars
of military coups continue to influence the legal trajectory of Nigeria. The nation has
grappled with the task of reconciling democratic values with the remnants of authoritarian
rule, navigating a path toward a transparent and effective legal framework. The resilience
of the Nigerian legal system in the face of such challenges underscores the importance
of ongoing efforts to strengthen constitutional principles, uphold human rights, and foster
an independent judiciary.

Moving forward, it is crucial for policymakers, legal scholars, and the broader society to
remain vigilant in safeguarding the foundational principles of democracy and the rule of
law. Lessons gleaned from the constitutional analysis of military coups should serve as a
catalyst for ongoing reforms and a commitment to building a legal system that stands
resilient in the face of external disruptions. By addressing the lingering effects of military
interventions, Nigeria can forge a path toward a legal framework that not only reflects
the aspirations of its people but also aligns with international standards of justice and
human rights.

The constitutional analysis presented in this term paper sheds light on a critical chapter
in Nigeria's legal history, emphasizing the imperative of continuous dedication to the
preservation and enhancement of the rule of law in the post-military era.

12 | P a g e