CONSTITUTION

This research conducts a critical examination of Sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which confer discretionary prosecutorial powers upon the Attorney-General of the Federation and the States. Additionally, it evaluates the broader constitutional protection afforded under Section 36(10), which safeguards individuals against double jeopardy. These provisions raise pressing inquiries regarding the equilibrium between executive discretion and the principles of justice, accountability, and fair hearings within Nigeria’s criminal justice system. The study investigates whether the extensive authority vested in the Attorney-General to initiate, pursue, or terminate criminal proceedings, particularly through nolle prosequi, has been exercised in accordance with the rule of law or has instead devolved into a mechanism for political interference and elite protection. This inquiry is contextualized within a conceptual and theoretical framework that examines justice (retributive, restorative, and distributive), prosecutorial discretion, and the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. Employing doctrinal and analytical legal research methodologies, the study delineates the historical evolution of the Attorney- General’s office and the development of prosecutorial discretion in Nigerian constitutional law. Furthermore, it discusses judicial interpretations of these provisions in landmark cases
such as State v. Ilori, Abacha v. State, Usman v. FRN, Mohammed v. State, and FRN v. Osahon & Ors, revealing a concerning tendency of judicial deference that could potentially facilitate the abuse of prosecutorial authority. Section 36(10) is scrutinized as a
constitutional guarantee of finality in criminal trials, which precludes multiple prosecutions for the same offense, thereby preserving the integrity of criminal adjudication. Nonetheless, this safeguard is frequently undermined when prosecutorial discretion is misused to arbitrarily terminate trials, denying victims’ closure and eroding public trust in the justice system. The study concludes that, although Sections 174, 211, and 36(10) each fulfill significant constitutional functions, their interactions must be meticulously overseen to prevent distortions of justice. Recommendations encompass the establishment of clearer statutory guidelines, judicial oversight of prosecutorial decisions, and institutional checks to avert the risk of discretion devolving into impunity. This work contributes to ongoing deliberations concerning democratic accountability, prosecutorial ethics, and the reformation of Nigeria’s criminal justice framework

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) made the theory of separation of powers a fundamental principle of state governance. This essay examines the doctrine of separation of powers under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to critically assessing the challenges facing same in Nigeria. The 1999 Constitution in different sections vested the powers of government in separate organs of government as follows: section 4 deals with the legislative powers; section 5 deals with the executive powers, while section 6 is concerned with judicial powers. This kind of separation of powers is known as the horizontal separation of powers. It has been discovered, by the adoption of doctrinal methodology as well as comparative research methodology, that a water-tight application of the doctrine of Separation of Powers is not possible. It is in recognition of this fact that the founders of the doctrine developed the principle of checks and balances which empowers each arm of government to serve as a check on the others to ensure that they do not go out of their constitutionally assigned roles. This concept of checks and balances is as well provided for in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Despite these provisions of the constitution, there are presently in Nigeria disputes and controversies concerning the meeting points of the powers allotted the various arms of government. The executive arm of government by virtue of the amplitude and plentitude of powers allotted to them by the constitution. The judicial arms of government appear to be at the receiving end of this power tussle. There are however certain salient areas in the interplay of powers where the three arms of government must converge or meet for the orderly regulation or governance of Nigerian society. This long essay reviewed the hallowed concept of separated 15 powers of government, the doctrine of checks and balances as well as the Independence of judiciary, the meeting points of the powers and their areas of dislocation. Some recommendations that will uplift the law and practice of sep rated powers in Nigeria were made.