The Doctrine of Basic Structure in Nigerian Constitutional Law



The Doctrine of Basic Structure is one of the most debated principles in constitutional law. It suggests that while a constitution can be amended, there are certain fundamental features so essential to its identity that they cannot be altered or destroyed—even through constitutional amendments.

Although this doctrine originated in India, Nigerian courts and scholars have increasingly examined its relevance in our constitutional system, especially as the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 (as amended) continues to shape our democracy.

Origin of the Doctrine – The Indian Experience

The doctrine was first established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, where the Supreme Court of India held that while Parliament had wide powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure.” Elements such as the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and democracy were declared unamendable.

This principle has since influenced constitutional jurisprudence globally.

Nigerian Perspective on the Basic Structure Doctrine

Nigeria’s Constitution, under Section 9, provides for amendment procedures. Unlike India, the Nigerian Constitution does not explicitly restrict amendments by reference to a “basic structure.” However, courts in Nigeria have, in certain cases, implicitly recognized limits to constitutional alteration.

Key Nigerian Cases

  1. Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264

    • The Supreme Court emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution, noting that any amendment or law inconsistent with it would be void.

  2. Lakanmi v. Attorney-General (Western State) (1971) 1 UILR 201

    • Though predating the 1999 Constitution, this case is often cited for affirming the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental constitutional principles against excessive executive or legislative interference.

  3. Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981) 10 SC 1

    • The court held that the federal structure of Nigeria is fundamental and cannot be altered without following due constitutional procedure.

  4. Governor of Ekiti State v. Fakiyesi (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 409

    • This case reiterated the importance of constitutional supremacy and adherence to democratic principles.

These cases illustrate that Nigerian courts, though not explicitly invoking a “Basic Structure Doctrine,” recognize that fundamental constitutional principles must not be undermined.

International Influence and Comparative Cases

  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (India, 1973) – Origin of the doctrine.
  • Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (India, 1975) – Struck down constitutional amendments that attempted to oust judicial review.
  • Uganda: Paul K. Ssemogerere & Ors v. Attorney-General (2004) UGCC 1 – The Constitutional Court of Uganda struck down an amendment for violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Pakistan: Anwar Hussain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (1989) – The Supreme Court recognized that certain essential features of the Constitution cannot be abrogated.

These cases reinforce the principle that constitutional supremacy is not unlimited amendment power.

Why It Matters for Nigeria

  1. Preservation of Democracy – Prevents amendments that could entrench authoritarian rule.
  2. Protection of Fundamental Rights – Safeguards citizens’ freedoms against political manipulation.
  3. Judicial Check on Power – Reinforces the role of courts in upholding constitutional values.
  4. Stability of Federalism – Protects Nigeria’s federal structure from being eroded.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Basic Structure remains a controversial but vital principle in constitutional law. While Nigeria has not formally adopted it in the way India has, our courts recognize that constitutional supremacy is not absolute and that democracy, federalism, and fundamental rights must be preserved.

As constitutional debates continue in Nigeria, the doctrine serves as a moral compass—reminding us that some principles are eternal and must never be amended away.


#BasicStructureDoctrine #ConstitutionalLaw #NigerianLaw #RuleOfLaw #FundamentalRights #Democracy #JudicialReview #SeparationOfPowers #LegalStudies #LawBlog

Comments

Post a Comment