THE REALITY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN PRESIDENT BUHARI’S ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The doctrine of separation of powers is an ancient principle that dates back to the earliest forms of human societal organization. In essence, it has existed since the emergence of structured societies. It is pertinent to note that this doctrine was both present and rigorously observed in pre-colonial Nigeria. This can be illustrated by reference to the old Oyo Empire, which featured several key traditional institutions, including the Alafin, the Oyo Mesi, and the Ogboni, alongside other title holders responsible for the empire’s administration. A clear separation of powers existed among the Alafin (as the paramount ruler), the Oyo Mesi, and the Ogboni. This arrangement facilitated essential checks and balances, preventing the undue concentration of authority in the hands of the Alafin and thereby mitigating the risks of power misuse or abuse.

The practice of separation of powers in the Oyo Empire was underpinned by core Yoruba adages, including:

(i) *Agbajowo lafi nsoya, ajeje owo kan ko gberu don* (Unity in collective effort sustains the community; a single hand cannot carry a heavy load);

(ii) *Akil fee mefi Laba Alade eni fojesu koni mumi* (The wise person seeks counsel from multiple sources); and

(iii) *Enikan kiije awade, Igi kan kole da igbo Se* (No individual can accomplish everything alone; a single tree does not make a forest).

These proverbs underscore the idea that no person is self-sufficient or capable of exercising absolute authority. Thus, the principle of separation of powers is indigenous to African societies and was not merely imported from Western traditions. While its formalized theoretical articulation may have been introduced into the Nigerian political system, the underlying concept is deeply rooted in local traditions.

The importance of good governance in any nation cannot be overstated. The primary objective of governance is the comprehensive development of all sectors within the national polity. Consequently, successive governments, whether emerging or established, typically formulate policies aimed at reforming political, economic, cultural, and social structures. These reform initiatives, regardless of their specific orientation, are fundamentally designed to uplift society across multiple domains, including education, health, transportation, and other essential services. Given their critical role, such policies seek to address the needs and aspirations of the citizenry as defined by the prevailing administration.

Military regimes in Nigeria significantly exacerbated the nation’s challenges by repeatedly deferring the transition to civilian rule. A common sentiment held that even the most flawed civilian administration was preferable to the most enlightened form of military dictatorship.

Following Nigeria’s attainment of independence in the 1960s, successive development plans of varying durations were implemented. National leaders recognized that political independence without corresponding economic autonomy would undermine the country’s sovereignty. They therefore sought to safeguard this hard-won independence while striving to improve the welfare of the populace. The primary responsibility for driving national economic and social development initiatives rested with successive governments.

According to Otese Simon, the economic landscape prior to Buhari’s administration was characterized by political leaders who, having recently secured independence, focused primarily on consolidating their grip on power rather than genuinely addressing the populace’s needs. This era was marked by intense competition for political offices and influence, often at the expense of the nation’s genuine economic priorities.

By any objective measure, military rule proved to be a catastrophic failure for Nigeria. Despite the country’s abundant human and material resources, it exhibited all the hallmarks of a failed state under military governance. Critical infrastructure including schools, roads, and hospitals was in a state of near collapse. Given this dismal legacy, there was widespread anticipation among Nigerians on the eve of the military’s exit from politics that the incoming elected civilian leadership would promptly prioritize improvements in living standards.

From 1983, when General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew the civilian government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari, through to the regime of General Sani Abacha, the nation’s economic conditions remained dire. Any apparent gains during this period were undermined by the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) introduced under General Ibrahim Babangida’s administration. Compounding these difficulties, the national currency was devalued, resulting in further deterioration of socio-economic conditions. Virtually all sectors of the economy health, education, transportation, and others were adversely affected.

The Structural Adjustment Programme was adopted in response to global economic crises of the late 1970s, including the oil crisis, debt crisis, and periods of economic depression and stagnation. SAP promoted the reduction of trade barriers and the adoption of free-market principles. Its components encompassed domestic reforms such as privatization and deregulation, as well as external measures focused on liberalizing trade. From the late 1990s onward, the concept of structural adjustment increasingly emphasized poverty reduction. The programme remained highly controversial, with critics arguing that it imposed severe hardships on workers and the most vulnerable segments of society.

Nigerians specifically anticipated that the end of military rule would result in a sharp decline in corruption, criminality, and egregious human rights violations. There was also hope that the divisive “divide and rule” strategies characteristic of military administrations would cease. It was expected that a civilian government would foster national unity, curb ethnic and communal violence (which had claimed numerous lives), and promote more effective management of national resources. Under good governance, it was believed that unemployment, insecurity, and criminal activities would diminish substantially.

Following an extensive examination of all facets of Nigerian society, a dedicated Bureau was established in 1986 (with its report submitted in March 1985). The third segment of the report focused primarily on the transition programme to civilian rule. It emphasized that a successful transition required the democratization of all governmental processes and institutions. The report advocated for a gradual, broadly spaced transition that would allow for political education, institutional adaptation, and the reorientation of political culture across successive tiers of government, commencing at the local level and culminating at the federal level.

Upon assuming office as an elected president following the handover of power by General Abdulsalami Abubakar, President Muhammadu Buhari initiated various policy reforms aimed at addressing the nation’s dilapidated economic infrastructure. Key among these was the fight against corruption, exemplified by the strengthening of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), originally inaugurated in 2003. Additional reforms targeted critical sectors such as electricity, transportation, agriculture, and general infrastructure development.

Buhari’s economic reform agenda sought to fundamentally transform Nigerian society, particularly in comparison to the conditions prevailing before his election in 2015. This study focuses specifically on these economic policy reforms and examines the reality of separation of powers during President Buhari’s administration.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Upon assuming power, President

Buhari’s administration expressed a commitment to delivering “democratic dividends” through responsive, participatory, transparent, and accountable governance. Many citizens anticipated that democracy would swiftly resolve Nigeria’s longstanding challenges, fostering security, stability, and robust economic development.

However, contradictions emerging

from the democratic transition and democratization processes have prompted increasing skepticism regarding the suitability of existing democratic models and institutions to Nigeria’s contemporary political and economic realities. A growing number of observers contend that Buhari’s democratic administration failed to meaningfully enhance the economic well-being of ordinary Nigerians. For instance, Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka remarked that “three and a half years of elected civilian rule have created a big disillusionment to virtually all those who had staked high hope on democracy as the panacea for our national woes, and socio-economic predicament.” Others have characterized the regime as corrupt, leaving the nation mired in both economic and political uncertainty.

While some of these assertions

may be subject to debate, it remains essential to undertake a historical and objective assessment of how Buhari’s administration contributed to Nigeria’s economic growth and development through its various reform initiatives.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The primary objective of this study is to examine the reality of separation of powers within President Buhari’s administration. In addition, the administration introduced several reforms deemed urgent and vital to national progress, many of which have attracted considerable criticism. This study therefore evaluates these reforms to determine the extent to which they advanced or failed to advance the broader economic development of the country.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

President Buhari’s emergence as an elected leader generated substantial optimism among Nigerians. He pledged to deliver the “Change” the nation required, encapsulated in the “Change Mantra,” with the vision of establishing a people-oriented and participatory government that would serve the interests of all citizens. This study seeks to offer scholarly insights into the practical workings of separation of powers during President Buhari’s administration. It is also intended to stimulate further academic research in this domain. The findings are expected to benefit current and future political leaders, economic policy planners, and other stakeholders.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study covers the period from 2015 to the present. The year 2015 marks the commencement of President Buhari’s elected tenure. The research analyzes the reality of separation of powers in his administration, with particular reference to major policy reforms and decisions undertaken during his time in office.

1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW

Existing scholarship specifically addressing the reality of separation of powers in President Buhari’s administration remains limited. Available materials are fragmented, with most focusing broadly on the social, political, and economic dimensions of the Buhari era rather than the specific theme of separation of powers.

Democracy has attracted extensive scholarly attention and has been defined in diverse ways. Buhari and Akin Mabogunje argue that, like all forms of human interaction, democracy must not be taken for granted; it requires deliberate nurturing and sustenance. The establishment, growth, and maintenance of democracy along with the protection of human rights have historically involved struggle, sacrifice, and bloodshed. They further assert that a democratic state functions to safeguard individual liberties through the strict observance of separation of powers.

Kayode Fayemi and Otive Igbuzor maintain that no democracy can endure amid pervasive poverty and unrelenting hopelessness among citizens. They view poverty as a latent form of violence, with democratic governance serving as a vital instrument for its alleviation. Their work also examines the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) as a framework for addressing deepening poverty.

Any system of government predicated on the rule of law and democracy particularly the presidential system practiced in Nigeria must incorporate the three principal organs of government: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. As Aihe rightly observes, such a division of functions is a prerequisite for the supremacy of the rule of law in any society.

The modern principle of separation of powers was articulated by Montesquieu, drawing inspiration from the writings of John Locke and the eighteenth-century English constitution. Locke, in his *Second Treatise of Civil Government*, provided the foundational rationale:

“It may be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hand the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they made and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage.”

Montesquieu similarly posited:

“Political Liberty is to be found only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows every man invested with power is liable to abuse it, and carry his authority as far as it will go. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the nature of things that one power should be a check on another. . . . When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty. Again there is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. There would be an end of everything if the same person or body, whether of the nobles or the people, were to exercise all the three powers.”

It is noteworthy that this principle was not operational in Montesquieu’s native France at the time, nor has it been fully implemented there even today, where executive and legislative functions often remain concentrated.

In contrast, the American constitution fully operationalized the theory of separation of powers, whereas the British constitution does not maintain such a rigid separation.

Nigerian constitutional scholar Professor Nwabueze underscores the importance of this principle:

“Concentration of governmental powers in the hands of one individual is the very definition of dictatorship and absolute power is by its very nature arbitrary, capricious and despotic. Limited government demands therefore that the organization of government should be based on some concept of structure, whereby the functions of law-making, execution and adjudication are vested in separate agencies, operating with separate personnel and procedure. . . . By separating the function of execution from that of the law-making, by insisting that every executive action must, in so far at any rate as it affects an individual, have the authority of some law, and by prescribing a different procedure for law making the arbitrariness of executive action can be effectively checked.”

In summary, separation of powers refers to the exercise of the three distinct governmental functions by the respective arms of government without undue interference or meddlesomeness in one another’s affairs, thereby ensuring effective checks and balances.

1.7 METHODOLOGY

This study adopts an interdisciplinary approach, drawing insights from fields such as political science and public administration. Given the contemporary nature of the subject matter, the research critically examines relevant perspectives and issues despite constraints related to data accessibility. Both chronological and thematic approaches provide the overarching analytical framework. Primary sources, including oral interviews and official government gazettes, were utilized. Secondary sources such as books, journal articles, newspapers, magazines, seminar papers, and conference proceedings relevant to the topic were also extensively consulted.