...a reflection on legality, institutional responsibility and the temporary nature of political power in Nigeria
A constitutional democracy begins to lose its footing when public institutions start treating official instructions as proof of legal authority. The erosion may not come through an outright rejection of the Constitution. More often, it emerges quietly through routine correspondence, administrative approvals and bureaucratic decisions taken simply because a powerful office has issued a directive.
In such circumstances, the crucial question gradually changes from “Is this action authorised by law?” to “Who gave the instruction?” Once political influence becomes more important than legal competence, official letters, stamps, minutes and procedures can give an unlawful decision the appearance of legitimacy.
That is a danger far greater than any single controversial appointment, questionable programme or disputed directive. It strikes at the foundation of public administration: the principle that government power must derive from the Constitution, legislation, regulations or a valid delegation of authority.
Nigeria therefore faces a fundamental institutional choice: will public bodies insist that authority is established before they act, or will the status and influence of the person issuing an instruction become a substitute for the law?
Public Power Is Borrowed, Not Owned
In a democracy, sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people. Public officials merely exercise portions of that authority for specified purposes and limited periods. Ministries, departments, agencies, legislatures, courts, security institutions and financial bodies are custodians of public power; they do not own it.
Holding a high office does not make every decision taken by its occupant lawful. An official may issue a genuine letter that falls outside the powers attached to the office. Similarly, an agency may follow every administrative step correctly while implementing a policy or decision that has no legal foundation.
Administrative procedure cannot cure a lack of legal authority.
The first duty of a public institution, therefore, should not be merely to verify the identity of the person issuing an instruction. It should determine the law that empowers the proposed action, the limits of that power and the procedure prescribed for exercising it.
That discipline protects both the citizen and the government. It prevents political pressure, personal influence and bureaucratic momentum from creating powers that were never granted by law.
How Unlawful Authority Acquires an Official Appearance
Institutional failure rarely occurs in one dramatic step. It can develop through a chain of seemingly ordinary administrative actions.
One office makes a request. Another endorses it. A third processes it on the assumption that the necessary checks have already been conducted. A fourth records the outcome as an established administrative decision.
By the end of the process, every participant may claim to have relied on another institution. But reliance does not erase the independent responsibility of each public body to ensure that its own action is lawful.
This is how an authority that began with an uncertain or defective legal foundation can gradually acquire an official appearance. The more desks it passes through, the more legitimate it may appear, even when the original defect has never been addressed.
Files are opened, minutes are written, budgets are prepared, staff requests are processed and records are created. Nothing may initially appear extraordinary. Yet the combined effect is to normalise an action whose legal foundation remains questionable.
The number of approvals cannot transform an unlawful act into a lawful one. Constitutional validity is not created by administrative repetition.
The Precedent That Outlives Its Beneficiaries
Political leaders and their supporters may be tempted to defend questionable exercises of authority when the immediate outcome serves their interests. An irregular decision may be justified in the name of efficiency, reform, political stability, regional interest or administrative necessity.
But political power is temporary.
Those who benefit from weakened safeguards today will eventually leave office, while the institutions and precedents they helped create will remain. Future administrations may inherit the same shortcuts and use them for entirely different purposes.
That is why selective commitment to the rule of law is ultimately dangerous to everyone.
A political group that excuses institutional abuse while in power cannot guarantee that the same weakness will not later be used against it. Administrative machinery does not remain loyal to those who first weakened its safeguards.
Nigeria's democratic institutions are therefore damaged whenever political actors condemn irregularities while in opposition but defend similar conduct after assuming power.
The real contest should not be between one administration and another. It should be between a legal system strong enough to restrain every government and a political culture that encourages each administration to exploit whatever authority it can temporarily control.
The Cost to Citizens
Citizens accept taxation, regulation and the legitimate coercive powers of government on the understanding that those powers will be exercised according to clear and predictable rules.
When political influence becomes more powerful than legal compliance, two systems begin to emerge. Ordinary citizens are expected to provide documents, comply with procedures and wait for approvals, while the politically connected may obtain results through endorsements and access to influential offices.
Such unequal treatment does more than undermine confidence in government. It can influence how public resources are allocated, who receives opportunities and how important decisions are made.
The economic consequences can also be severe. Businesses and investors require predictable rules and decisions capable of surviving changes in political leadership. Where access and influence matter more than law, compliance loses value and political connections become a form of currency.
The ultimate cost is borne by Nigerians through arbitrary decisions, wasteful spending, weak public services, uncertain investment conditions and a growing perception that government procedures exist mainly to restrain those without influence.
Why Those in Government Should Be Concerned
Weakening legal safeguards may appear convenient to those in power, particularly when an administration wants to act quickly or overcome institutional resistance. But such shortcuts eventually remove protections that the same officials may need when political circumstances change.
An institution trained to obey personalities will not necessarily remain loyal to the personality that first commanded it.
An official who normalises selective enforcement cannot assume that future enforcement will be directed in the same way. Likewise, a government that discourages scrutiny cannot expect strong due process to reappear automatically when former officials face allegations.
Public servants should also understand that following an instruction does not necessarily eliminate responsibility. A superior's directive may explain why an official acted, but it does not automatically remove administrative, civil or criminal consequences where the law has been breached.
Political officeholders eventually leave. Official records, signatures, approvals and financial documents remain.
An officer who asks for the relevant statutory provision, written delegation or legal opinion should not be regarded as disloyal. Such scrutiny may prevent government from exceeding its powers and protect officials from consequences that may emerge long after the immediate political pressure has disappeared.
True loyalty to government is therefore not blind obedience. It is the willingness to ensure that government remains within the law.
When the State Retains Form but Loses Discipline
A government can remain busy and apparently functional even while its constitutional discipline is weakening.
Committees continue to meet. Budgets are prepared. Circulars are issued. Programmes are announced. Official correspondence continues to move between institutions.
But administrative activity alone does not guarantee constitutional government.
A state can become rich in paperwork and poor in accountability when its institutions stop asking whether the decisions they implement have a valid legal foundation.
The most dangerous stage comes when questionable practices become normal. What was once considered exceptional gradually becomes routine. Officials learn that difficult questions may attract disapproval, while unquestioning compliance is rewarded.
Constitutional systems do not necessarily collapse through one dramatic event. They can also deteriorate through countless small decisions in which officials surrender independent judgment, postpone scrutiny or assume that someone else has verified the law.
The routine refusal to establish legal authority can therefore be as damaging as an open challenge to constitutional order.
Restoring Legal Discipline in Public Administration
The starting point is straightforward: significant government actions should have a clearly documented legal basis before implementation.
The relevant constitutional provision, statute, regulation, executive instrument or lawful delegation should be identified at the beginning of the process, not searched for after controversy has erupted.
Legal and compliance departments should also be given genuine authority to review proposals before decisions are implemented. Their responsibility should not be limited to finding legal arguments for decisions that have already been taken.
Where there is uncertainty about authority, clarification should be obtained in writing. Where an apparent conflict with existing law exists, implementation should be suspended until the matter is properly resolved.
Public servants should also have clear channels for escalating legal and procedural concerns without fear of retaliation.
Every ministry, department and agency must conduct its own due diligence. Approval by another government institution may be relevant, but it does not absolve the receiving institution of responsibility for ensuring that its own participation is lawful.
Senior officials have an additional responsibility to create an environment where professional disagreement is not automatically treated as insubordination. A leader surrounded only by officials willing to approve every instruction may eventually lose the independent advice necessary to protect the administration itself.
The Role of Oversight Institutions
Legislatures, auditors, anti-corruption agencies and other oversight bodies should examine more than whether public funds were stolen after they were released.
They should also ask whether the institution receiving public resources was lawfully established, whether the officials involved possessed the necessary authority and whether mandatory procedures were followed.
Public loss can occur even before conventional theft takes place. Resources may be committed to entities whose legal foundation is uncertain. Staff structures may be created for organisations without proper authority. Government institutions may expend money, time and credibility implementing decisions that were defective from inception.
Oversight should therefore examine the entire chain of decision-making: who initiated the process, what documents were relied upon, which institution first accepted the action as valid, what legal advice was obtained and where scrutiny failed.
Responsibility should not disappear simply because several institutions participated. Each institution should be required to explain the legal basis for its own decision rather than shift responsibility to another agency.
The Responsibility of Citizens
Popular sovereignty has meaning only when citizens remain interested in how public power is exercised.
Nigerians should demand more than the name or status of the official who approved a decision. The important questions are: What law permits it? What public purpose does it serve? Was the proper procedure followed? Who is accountable for the outcome?
Journalists, civil society groups, professional organisations, community leaders and citizens have a role to play in scrutinising the creation of public institutions, the exercise of regulatory powers and the allocation of public resources.
Most importantly, legality must be defended consistently.
Citizens weaken their own protection when they excuse questionable conduct because it benefits their political party, region, ethnic group, religious community or preferred leader. A safeguard abandoned for today's advantage may be desperately needed tomorrow.
The rule of law cannot be reduced to a weapon for use against political opponents. It must be a common restraint accepted even when it is inconvenient.
Nigeria cannot build strong institutions if political groups repeatedly exchange long-term institutional integrity for short-term political advantage.
Public office is a trust, not private property. It is held for a limited period and within boundaries established by law.
An official letter may initiate an administrative process, but it cannot create a power that legislation has withheld. Cooperation between public institutions may improve governance, but collective participation cannot make lawful an action that none of the participating bodies was authorised to undertake.
The safeguard is therefore simple but fundamental: before government acts, authority must be established, responsibility must be accepted and legality must be treated as a condition for action—not as an inconvenience to be considered afterwards.
Chief Ibrahim A. Welye, Kwalmila Nunguraya, writes from Adamawa State, Nigeria.
0 Comments