SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE PROBLEM OF EXECUTIVE DOMINANCE IN NIGERIA
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT
This study examines the doctrine of separation of powers and the persistent problem of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999–present). Despite the explicit constitutional framework under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which vests distinct powers in the executive (Section 5), legislature (Section 4), and judiciary (Section 6), the practice of governance in Nigeria has been characterized by a pervasive imbalance that privileges the executive arm at the expense of the other branches. Drawing on a qualitative research design and relying on secondary data sourced from scholarly articles, legal texts, judicial decisions, and government documents, this study interrogates the gap between constitutional theory and political reality. The study finds that executive dominance in Nigeria is rooted in historical antecedents particularly the legacy of prolonged military rule from 1966 to 1979 and 1983 to 1999 which bequeathed a governance culture that normalized the concentration of power in the executive. Contemporary manifestations include the arbitrary use of executive orders, non-compliance with judicial decisions, budgetary manipulation, legislative intimidation, and the selective deployment of security agencies against political opponents and judicial officers. The theoretical framework is anchored in the separation of powers theory, as articulated by Montesquieu (1748), and supplemented by the checks and balances theory of James Madison. The study recommends comprehensive constitutional reforms, strengthening of anti-corruption and oversight institutions, judicial independence, and the deepening of civic and legislative capacity as essential measures to address executive overreach and consolidate Nigeria’s democracy.
Keywords: Separation of Powers, Executive Dominance, Nigeria, 1999 Constitution, Checks and Balances, Judicial Independence, Fourth Republic, Democracy, Rule of Law.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The doctrine of separation of powers stands as one of the most foundational principles in the architecture of modern democratic governance. Rooted in Enlightenment philosophy and constitutionalized in numerous democratic systems across the globe, this doctrine holds that the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the state must be exercised by distinct, independent, and co-equal institutions in order to prevent tyranny, protect individual liberties, and ensure accountable governance. The intellectual genealogy of the doctrine can be traced from the works of Aristotle, through the social contract theorists of the seventeenth century, to its most systematic and enduring formulation by the French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu in his monumental work, L’Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws) in 1748. Montesquieu argued, with compelling force, that political liberty can only be guaranteed when no single person or body of persons simultaneously exercises the powers to make, execute, and adjudicate the law (Montesquieu, 1748; Agbede, 2021).
James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 51, elaborated upon this foundational principle by introducing the concept of checks and balances a mechanism by which each branch of government is furnished with the constitutional tools to restrain and supervise the conduct of the others, so that ambition may be made to counteract ambition (Madison, 1788, as cited in Oladele et al., 2024). This Madisonian refinement of the Montesquieuian framework became the philosophical cornerstone of the United States Constitution of 1787 and subsequently influenced the constitutional designs of numerous other presidential democracies, including Nigeria.Nigeria’s encounter with the doctrine of separation of powers has been shaped by a complex interplay of colonial inheritance, military authoritarianism, elite political behavior, and institutional weakness. At independence on October 1, 1960, Nigeria adopted a Westminster-style parliamentary constitution that fused legislative and executive powers, offering only a limited semblance of institutional separation. The 1963 Republican Constitution maintained this pattern, and while provisions existed for the legislature (Chapter V), executive (Chapter VI), and judiciary (Chapter VIII), there was no sharp demarcation of powers in practice (Nnajiofor & Nnajiofor, 2024). The first military coup of January 15, 1966, abruptly terminated the First Republic, ushering in nearly two decades of military rule during which constitutional governance was suspended, the legislature was dissolved, and power was concentrated in the Supreme Military Council and the Head of State. During this long period of military interregnum, the executive effectively absorbed the legislative and judicial functions of the state, governing through decrees and edicts that were immune from judicial review (Oladele et al., 2024).The return to civilian rule under the Second Republic (1979–1983) brought with it the adoption of a presidential system of government modeled on the American constitutional framework, formally enshrining the principle of separation of powers for the first time in Nigerian constitutional history. However, the Second Republic was short-lived, terminated by another military coup in December 1983. A second transition to democracy in 1993 was equally aborted when the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the June 12 presidential elections widely believed to have been won by Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, plunging the country into prolonged political crisis (Oladele et al., 2024; Ihemeje, Zaid & Jayum, 2016).The most consequential transition in Nigeria’s constitutional history occurred on May 29, 1999, when General Abdulsalami Abubakar handed power to the democratically elected government of President Olusegun Obasanjo, marking the beginning of the Fourth Republic, which has endured to the present day. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) explicitly provides for the separation of powers by vesting the legislative powers of the federation in the National Assembly (Section 4), the executive powers in the President of the Federal Republic (Section 5), and the judicial powers in the courts of law (Section 6). At the sub-national level, corresponding provisions allocate powers to State Houses of Assembly (Section 4(6) and (7)) and State Governors (Section 5(2)), creating both horizontal and vertical dimensions of power separation (Nwire et al., 2024; Agbede, 2021).Despite these constitutional provisions, the practical application of the doctrine in Nigeria has remained deeply problematic. Scholars across disciplines have consistently observed that executive dominance has been the defining characteristic of governance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, manifesting in the overreach of presidential and gubernatorial powers at the expense of legislative autonomy and judicial independence. As Nnajiofor and Nnajiofor (2024) observe with striking clarity, ‘the actual practice of this doctrine in Nigeria is simply challenged by the overreach of the executive, legislative subservience and palpable judicial marginalization.’ This disjuncture between constitutional prescription and political practice constitutes the central problematic that animates the present study. Executive dominance in Nigeria is not merely a contemporary aberration but a deeply entrenched historical phenomenon. The long history of military rule established a political culture in which the executive branch regarded itself as superior to, and largely unconstrained by, the other arms of government (Ihemeje et al., 2016; Baba, 2015). When civilian governments assumed power in 1999, many of the personnel who populated the executive branch, including the president himself (a former military head of state), were products of this authoritarian political culture, and their conduct in office often reflected it. As Awotokun (2021, as cited in Nwankwo et al., 2021) notes, the 1999 Constitution was itself crafted by the departing military government without meaningful popular participation, making it an ‘elite-oriented constitution’ that embedded structural biases favoring executive power.The manifestations of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic have been varied, pervasive, and well-documented in the scholarly literature. One of the earliest and most emblematic instances occurred in the administration of President Obasanjo (1999–2007), when the executive unilaterally scrapped the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), established by Decree No. 25 of 1994, without legislative authorization. The National Assembly viewed this act as a direct usurpation of its constitutional responsibility of making and repealing laws, triggering one of the earliest legislative-executive confrontations of the Fourth Republic (Ihemeje et al., 2016; South East Journal of Political Science, 2023). Subsequently, a pattern of executive disregard for legislative prerogatives became a recurring feature of Nigerian governance, encompassing incidents such as the refusal to present budgets on time, the implementation of unappropriated expenditures, the intimidation of legislators through security agencies, and the manipulation of legislative leadership.
The relationship between the executive and the judiciary has been equally fraught. The issuance of executive orders a practice that has intensified in recent years has raised serious questions about the incursion of the executive into the law-making functions constitutionally reserved for the legislature and the interpretive functions reserved for the courts (Onyekachi, 2022; People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2022). Furthermore, the executive’s non-compliance with judicial decisions has been identified as one of the most corrosive features of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. As Separation of Powers in Nigeria (2024) highlights, the executive has, on numerous occasions, openly defied court orders, detaining individuals contrary to judicial pronouncements, refusing to implement decisions favorable to political opponents, and even moving against judicial officers who delivered inconvenient rulings. This behavior, Nnajiofor and Nnajiofor (2024) argue, reduces the courts to mere advisory bodies rather than co-equal institutions of constitutional governance.The problem of executive dominance is further compounded by the structural weakness of the Nigerian legislature. While the 1999 Constitution endows the National Assembly with substantial powers including the power to make laws, override presidential vetoes, approve budgets, confirm ministerial nominees, conduct oversight, and even impeach the president the legislature has frequently been unable or unwilling to exercise these powers effectively. Studies have pointed to the high turnover of legislators between election cycles (hampering institutional memory and legislative experience), the subordination of legislative conduct to party loyalty and executive patronage, the susceptibility of lawmakers to financial inducements from the executive, and the prevalence of intra-legislative conflicts as structural factors that undermine the legislature’s capacity to serve as a meaningful check on executive power (Fashagba, 2010; Momodu & Ika, 2013; Aiyede, 2005, as cited in Ihemeje et al., 2016). The Court of Appeal in the case of Hon. Abdullahi Maccido Ahmad v. Sokoto State House of Assembly & Anor (2002) 44 WRN 52 articulated the ideal, holding that the doctrine of separation of powers requires that one branch should not dominate or control another arm. Yet the distance between this judicial articulation and political reality in Nigeria remains vast.
The significance of addressing executive dominance in Nigeria extends far beyond abstract constitutional theory. At the most immediate level, it bears directly on the quality of governance, democratic accountability, and the rule of law. Where the executive is unchecked, the risks of corruption, abuse of power, and authoritarian drift are substantially heightened. Nigeria’s experience confirms this: the country consistently ranks poorly on international indices of democratic performance, rule of law, and corruption. The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Nigeria a ‘hybrid regime’ as recently as 2019, reflecting precisely the gap between democratic form and democratic substance that executive dominance helps to perpetuate (Politics of Nigeria, 2024; Journal of Law and Global Policy, 2025).Moreover, the problem is not merely one of presidential excess at the federal level. State governors in Nigeria have demonstrated equally, if not more severe, patterns of executive dominance over state legislatures and judiciaries. Baba (2015) documented in detail how executive dominance, party control, and legislative subservience have characterized governance at the state level in multiple geopolitical zones, confirming the systemic rather than episodic nature of the problem. Recent developments under the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu including executive decisions concerning Nigeria’s relationship with ECOWAS on the Niger Republic question that required legislative consultation further illustrate the contemporary relevance of the problem (South East Journal of Political Science, 2023).Scholarly attention to the question of separation of powers in Nigeria has grown substantially in the past two decades, reflecting heightened concern among academics, legal practitioners, civil society, and the citizenry about the trajectory of Nigerian democracy. Works such as those of Nwabueze (1982), Agbede (2021), Nnajiofor and Nnajiofor (2024), Oladele et al. (2024), and the South East Political Science Review (2023) have collectively enriched the intellectual discourse. However, many existing studies are either narrowly focused on specific dimensions of the problem (such as executive-legislative conflicts or executive non-compliance with judicial decisions) or are descriptive rather than analytical in their approach. There remains a need for a comprehensive, theoretically grounded, and empirically informed analysis that situates the problem of executive dominance within the broader framework of separation of powers theory, traces its historical and institutional roots, identifies its contemporary manifestations, and proposes viable reform pathways. This study seeks to fill that gap.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides an ostensibly robust framework for the separation of powers among the three arms of government. Sections 4, 5, and 6 vest distinct and specific powers in the legislature, executive, and judiciary respectively, and the constitution goes further to establish a system of mutual checks designed to prevent any one arm from arrogating undue power to itself. Yet, more than two decades since the commencement of the Fourth Republic, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that executive dominance has become the default mode of governance in Nigeria, rendering the constitutional provisions on separation of powers largely aspirational rather than operational.The problem manifests at multiple levels. First, there is the structural imbalance embedded in the 1999 Constitution itself, which, as scholars have noted, was crafted by the departing military without genuine popular participation, and which vests broad and sweeping powers in the executive without corresponding mechanisms of effective accountability (Awotokun, 2021; Journal of Law and Global Policy, 2025). Second, there is the behavioral dimension the willingness of successive occupants of the executive to push the boundaries of their constitutional authority, issue executive orders with the force of legislation, ignore or defy judicial decisions, and manipulate or intimidate the legislature. Third, there is the institutional dimension the weakness and susceptibility to capture of the legislature and judiciary, which have historically been unable to mount sustained and effective resistance to executive overreach.The consequences of this state of affairs are profound. The subversion of separation of powers concentrates power in the executive, creates conditions conducive to corruption and impunity, undermines the rule of law, erodes public trust in democratic institutions, and ultimately threatens the long-term survival of Nigeria’s democracy. As Mbachu (1998, as cited in Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Philosophy, 2017) argued, when executive, legislative, and judicial powers are united in one person or body of persons, the result is arbitrary despotism. Nigeria’s experience provides ample evidence in support of this warning. This study therefore seeks to rigorously examine the dimensions, causes, and consequences of executive dominance in Nigeria, and to propose a framework for reform that can meaningfully strengthen the separation of powers.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this study is to examine the doctrine of separation of powers and the problem of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. The specific objectives are as follows:
i. To examine the theoretical and historical foundations of the doctrine of separation of powers in democratic systems.
ii. To analyze the constitutional framework for the separation of powers under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
iii. To identify and assess the historical and institutional factors that have promoted executive dominance in Nigeria’s governance.
iv. To examine the contemporary manifestations of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, with particular reference to executive-legislative and executive-judicial relations.
v. To propose institutional and constitutional reform measures capable of strengthening the separation of powers and restraining executive dominance in Nigeria.
1.4 Research Question
In furtherance of its objectives, this study is guided by the following research questions:
i. What are the theoretical and historical foundations of the doctrine of separation of powers, and how have these been applied in the Nigerian constitutional context?
ii. To what extent does the 1999 Constitution provide an adequate framework for the separation of powers in Nigeria?
iii. What historical and institutional factors have enabled executive dominance to persist in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic?
iv. How has executive dominance manifested in the relationships between the executive and the legislature, and between the executive and the judiciary in contemporary Nigeria?
v. What reforms are necessary to achieve a genuine and functional separation of powers in Nigeria?
1.5 Significance of the Study
This study is significant for several interconnected reasons. Theoretically, it contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation about the applicability and limitations of the separation of powers doctrine in post-colonial, emerging democratic contexts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. By situating Nigeria’s experience within the broader theoretical framework of Montesquieu’s doctrine and Madisonian checks and balances, the study enriches the existing literature and provides a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which separation of powers can or cannot function effectively.Empirically, the study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the manifestations of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, drawing on a wide range of scholarly sources and documented cases. This analysis is valuable for legal practitioners, political scientists, policy analysts, and democratic governance advocates seeking to understand the structural dynamics of Nigerian political institutions.Practically, the study’s reform proposals are directed at policymakers, constitutional reformers, civil society organizations, and the Nigerian citizenry, offering evidence-based recommendations for institutional strengthening and constitutional revision that can contribute to the deepening of Nigeria’s democracy. Given the country’s strategic importance—as Africa’s largest democracy and most populous nation—the health of its democratic institutions has implications not only for its own citizens but for the broader trajectory of democratic governance on the African continent.
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study
The temporal scope of this study is primarily Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, spanning from 1999 to the present (2025), though the historical analysis necessarily reaches back to the colonial period and the successive military regimes in order to adequately contextualize contemporary dynamics. The geographical scope covers the federal level of governance, with illustrative references to state-level dynamics where relevant. The study relies primarily on secondary data scholarly articles, books, legal texts, judicial decisions, government documents, and credible online sources given the qualitative and analytical nature of the inquiry.
The limitations of the study include the potential inaccessibility of certain government documents, the limited availability of longitudinal empirical data on institutional performance, and the rapidly evolving nature of Nigerian politics, which means that some developments may postdate the period covered by the most recently available sources. Despite these limitations, the study draws on a sufficiently broad and current body of literature to support its analytical conclusions and recommendations.
1.7 Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in the Separation of Powers Theory, as originally formulated by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Montesquieu argued that political liberty is possible only when governmental power is distributed among three distinct and independent institutions the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary such that none can accumulate sufficient power to become tyrannical. His celebrated dictum holds that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers’ (Montesquieu, 1748, as cited in Agbede, 2021). This tripartite division of power remains the theoretical bedrock of constitutional democracy globally.The study supplements this foundational framework with James Madison’s Theory of Checks and Balances, elaborated in the Federalist Papers (particularly Federalist Nos. 47 and 51). Madison argued that mere parchment barriers (i.e., constitutional provisions) are insufficient to prevent the encroachment of one branch upon the others; rather, each branch must be furnished with ‘constitutional arms’ to resist the encroachments of the others, so that ambition counteracts ambition (Madison, 1788, as cited in Formosa Publisher Journal, 2024). This Madisonian framework is particularly germane to the Nigerian situation, where constitutional provisions for separation of powers exist but have proved insufficient to prevent executive dominance in practice.Fritz Heider’s Balance Theory (1946), adopted by scholars in the South East Political Science Review (2023), is also relevant to the analysis. Balance theory suggests that equilibrium among political actors and institutions analogous to balance in social relations makes dominance by any one party impossible. The chronic imbalance observed in Nigeria’s constitutional practice, where the executive consistently dominates, can be understood through this lens as a systemic failure to achieve the equilibrium that functional separation of powers requires. These three theoretical lenses Montesquieuian separation, Madisonian checks and balances, and Heiderian balance together provide a robust framework for analyzing the Nigerian experience.
1.8 Research Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research design, relying on the Content Analytical Approach as its methodological framework. Data are generated exclusively from secondary sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles sourced primarily from Google Scholar, legal textbooks, constitutional documents, judicial decisions, government publications, and credible online repositories. The choice of a qualitative approach is justified by the nature of the research questions, which require interpretive, analytical, and evaluative engagement with complex constitutional and political phenomena rather than statistical measurement.The content analytical approach allows the researcher to systematically examine the content of scholarly and legal texts, identify recurring patterns and themes in the discourse on executive dominance, and draw reasoned inferences about the causes, manifestations, and consequences of the problem. All sources are cited in APA format (7th edition) in accordance with standard academic convention. The study is primarily descriptive-analytical, seeking to understand and explain rather than to predict or test hypotheses in the strict positivist sense.
1.9 Definition of Key Terms
Separation of Powers: The constitutional doctrine that divides governmental authority among three distinct and independent institutions the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary each with specified functions and powers, in order to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberty.Executive Dominance: A systemic condition in which the executive arm of government exercises disproportionate influence over or control of the other branches of government is the legislature and the judiciary in ways that undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers and checks and balances.Checks and Balances: A system of mutual supervisory and restraining mechanisms among the branches of government, designed to ensure that each branch can prevent the others from exceeding their constitutional authority.Fourth Republic: The current democratic dispensation in Nigeria, which began on May 29, 1999, with the inauguration of the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo following elections organized by the outgoing military government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar.Rule of Law: The principle that all persons, institutions, and entities, including the state and its officials, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated.
Constitutionalism: The doctrine that governmental authority is derived from and limited by a body of fundamental law the constitution and that all state action must conform to its provisions.Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary must be free from interference or pressure from the executive or legislative branches in the exercise of its judicial functions, as a prerequisite for impartial adjudication and the protection of rights.
1.10 Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One, as presented herein, provides the introduction, including the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, significance, scope, theoretical framework, methodology, definitions of key terms, and the organization of the study. Chapter Two undertakes a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, situating the study within existing scholarly discourse on separation of powers, executive dominance, and democratic consolidation in Nigeria and comparative contexts. Chapter Three examines the constitutional and legal framework for the separation of powers in Nigeria, with particular attention to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and relevant judicial decisions. Chapter Four presents an analytical examination of the manifestations and drivers of executive dominance in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, covering executive-legislative relations, executive-judicial relations, and the role of institutional and political factors. Chapter Five presents the conclusions of the study and offers a set of recommendations for constitutional, institutional, and political reforms aimed at strengthening the separation of powers and curtailing executive dominance in Nigeria.
REFERENCES
Agbede, O. (2021). The doctrine of separation of powers over time and a case for the review of Nigeria’s power separation model. UNILAG Law Review, 5(1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4638292
Aiyede, R. E. (2005). Executive-legislature relations in Nigeria’s emerging presidential democracy. UNILAG Journal of Politics, 2(1), 14–36.Awotokun, K. (2021). Legislative-executive relations in Nigeria’s presidential democracy. Journal of Politics and Law, 14(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v14n2p1
Baba, Y. T. (2015). Executive dominance, party control, and state legislatures in Nigeria: Evidence from three states in the Northwest geopolitical zone. In A. C. LeVan, J. O. Fashagba, & E. R. McMahon (Eds.), African state governance (pp. 81–102). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137523341_5
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999, as amended). Federal Government Press.
Fashagba, J. Y. (2010). De-constitutionalising democratic governance in Nigeria: Assessing executive-legislative handling of executive power vacuum in the Fourth Republic. Africana, 4(2), 7–44.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–112.
Hon. Abdullahi Maccido Ahmad v. Sokoto State House of Assembly & Anor (2002) 44 WRN 52 (Court of Appeal Nigeria).Ihemeje, C. G., Zaid, A., & Jayum, A. J. (2016). Factors influencing the executive and legislative conflict in Nigeria’s political development. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(8), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2108072025
Journal of Law and Global Policy (JLGP). (2025). An analysis of the historical origins of executive powers in Nigeria. JLGP, 10(2), 97–121. IIARD.
Mba, C. (2007). Separation of powers and democratic governance in Nigeria. Journal of Constitutional Development, 7(1), 45–62.
Momodu, A. J., & Ika, L. A. (2013). The implications of executive-legislative conflicts on good governance in Nigeria. Public Policy and Administration Research, 3(3), 30–42.
Montesquieu, C. L. de S. (1748). De l’esprit des lois [The spirit of the laws]. (T. Nugent, Trans., 1750). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1748).
Nnajiofor, O., & Nnajiofor, C. (2024). The reality and practice of separation of powers in Nigeria. African Journal of Law and Human Rights, 8(1), 1–25. Ezenwaohaetorc Publishers.
Nwabueze, B. O. (1982). The presidential constitution of Nigeria. C. Hurst & Company Publishers.
Nwankwo, O. U., Onwa, D. O., Elom, M. E., & Umahi, F. E. (2021). Budgeting, appropriation and public account management towards better executive-legislative relations in Nigeria. South East Political Science Review, 9(1), 190–205.
Oladele, O. O., Aremu, A. B., & Okafor, C. (2024). Chronicling how separation of power fares in Nigeria. African Journal of Biomedical Research, 27(5s), 1–18.
Onyekachi, D. (2022). The doctrine of separation of powers under the Nigerian constitution: A critical overview. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2022.82.120137 South East Journal of Political Science. (2023). Legislative-executive relations as a panacea to enhancing good governance in Nigeria. South East Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 190–205.South East Political Science Review. (2023). Thorny issues in separation of powers in Nigeria. South East Political Science Review, 9(2), 1–20. https://journals.npsa-se.org.ng/index.php/SEPSR/article/view/23Wikipedia Contributors. (2024). Politics of Nigeria. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Nigeria
