Hon Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, died on the 6th of June 2025. He was 89.
In the annals of Nigerian constitutional history, few jurists have left a legacy as enduring and transformative as that of Hon. Justice Muhammed Lawal Uwais.
While his tenure on the Supreme Court bench was the longest in the
Court’s history, it was his years as Chief Justice—from the twilight of military rule to the dawn of the Fourth Republic—that would define his judicial legacy.
Presiding over the Supreme Court during a fragile transition from authoritarianism to democracy, Uwais steered the Court through some of the most consequential constitutional battles in Nigeria’s federal evolution. Between 1999 and 2007, his Court was called upon to adjudicate in at least a dozen cases where state governments challenged the Federal Government’s overreach, testing the
very boundaries of Nigeria’s federal structure.
The disputes involved radical, novel, and far-reaching constitutional questions that demanded intellectual clarity, institutional courage, and unwavering fidelity to the Constitution.
Justice Uwais rose to that moment with principled resolve. Without drama or personal posturing, he insisted that the
Constitution—not political convenience—must always prevail. His judgments reflected a deep
understanding of federalism not as a theoretical ideal, but as a living structure requiring balance, accountability, and mutual respect between the tiers of government.
Among the questions the Uwais Court was called upon to resolve was whether State governments could lawfully sue the Federal Government over constitutional disputes. In AG Ondo State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court affirmed this right unequivocally, holding that states had standing to bring legal action against the centre when federal laws or actions appeared to breach the
constitutional order. It was a foundational ruling that affirmed judicial redress as a legitimate tool of federal self-defence.
When Lagos State challenged federal authority over urban development and physical planning, the question that arose was who truly controls land use and planning within a State’s territory, especially where federal lands are involved? In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2003), the Uwais Court held that the State government retains exclusive legislative and executive authority over urban and regional
planning, even in respect of federal land located within its boundaries. The federal government, the Court ruled, must obtain necessary development permits from the state in accordance with its planning laws—an important assertion of territorial autonomy.
The boundaries of fiscal federalism were tested on the issue of ownership of oil revenues derived from offshore wells. In AG Federation v. AG Abia State (No. 2) (2002), the Court determined that offshore natural resources—particularly those beyond the 200 nautical-mile limit belonged not to
the littoral states but to the Federation as a whole. This decision placed constitutional boundaries on resource control claims while paving the way for the derivation formula to be refined in subsequent fiscal arrangements.
Controversy also surrounded the power of States to create new local government areas. In AG Lagos State v. AG Federation (2004), Lagos had established 37 new Local Governments Areas. While the Court acknowledged the State’s authority to create such entities through enabling legislation, it stressed that these new councils could not be
recognised as constitutional local government areas—and thus could not receive direct federal allocations—until their existence was ratified by the National Assembly via listing of the newly created local governments in part 2 of the First Schedule to the Constitution.
Of even greater moment was the courts determination that the President lacks the constitutional power to unilaterally withhold funds due to existing local governments, underscoring that no tier of government may be arbitrarily denied its lawful entitlement from the Federation account.
The Uwais Court also addressed the question as to whether the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could lawfully impose additional registration criteria on political parties beyond what the Constitution prescribes. In INEC v. Musa (2003), the Court invalidated several provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC’s guidelines that required evidence of national spread, physical offices in 24 states, and electoral victories as conditions for continued registration. It held that only the requirements stated in Section 222 of the Constitution—namely a registered office in Abuja,
a defined party name and logo, and membership open to all—were valid. Any further conditions imposed by statute or regulation were declared ultra vires and struck down, thereby widening the democratic space for political participation.
Equally pivotal was the Court’s clarification of legislative powers over primary education. In AG Ogun State v. AG Federation (2002), the Court ruled that primary education fell within the domain of concurrent legislative authority, meaning both federal and state governments had the constitutional competence to legislate in that field. This
reaffirmed the cooperative nature of Nigerian federalism, where shared responsibilities do not imply subordination.
In Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002), the Court confronted the tension between executive immunity and the rule of law. It held that while governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution while in office, they are not shielded from investigation. The distinction was critical: although they cannot be tried until they leave office, law enforcement agencies such as the police or EFCC may investigate alleged misconduct, thereby
ensuring that accountability mechanisms are not frozen by immunity provisions.
The Court also pronounced on the independence of state legislatures from gubernatorial interference. In Balonwu v. Governor of Anambra State (2004), the Court ruled that the governor has no role in the internal affairs of the House of Assembly, including its choice of leadership. Any attempt by the executive to influence the appointment or removal of a speaker constituted an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative autonomy and violated
the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Perhaps the most far-reaching judgment of the Uwais era came in AG Abia & 35
Others v. AG Federation (2005), where the Court considered whether the Federal Government could deduct various “first-line charges” from the Federation Account before distributing revenue to the states and local governments. The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of Section 162 of the Constitution, holding that revenue must be
distributed strictly in accordance with the formula approved by the National Assembly. Except for deductions expressly permitted—such as the 13% derivation for oil-producing states—all other first-line deductions, including payments to the NNPC for joint venture operations, external debt servicing, and even funding for the National Judicial Council (of which the Chief Justice was chair), were declared unconstitutional.
Remarkably, the Court ruled that although the NJC enjoys constitutional financial autonomy, it must receive its funding from the
Consolidated Revenue Fund and not directly from the Federation Account. In doing so, the Uwais Court placed the integrity of the Constitution above institutional interest—even its own.
For Justice Uwais, the Constitution was clearly not merely a ceremonial document. He understood it as a living covenant that bound all arms of government—and all levels of government—to a shared discipline. The Court he led did not shy away from calling the Federal Government to order, nor did it allow States to overreach their bounds. In his quiet, resolute way, his Lordship elevated
the authority of the judiciary and deepened Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.
He will be remembered not only as the longest-serving Justice of the Supreme Court, but as one who laid critical foundational stones in the evolving legal architecture of a true federal republic.
The judgments delivered by the Uwais court continue to shape Nigeria’s democratic journey and will remain beacons of principled adjudication for generations to come.
Yemi Osinbajo, SAN
Immediate Past Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
June 16, 2025
