Balancing Judicial Decisions and Acts of the National Assembly: Understanding the Force of Law in Nigeria

By P.L Osakwe

■ INTRODUCTION
In constitutional law, one of the most intriguing questions is the status of judicial decisions within the hierarchy of laws. When the Constitution says something has the “force of law,” it raises a deeper issue: can the decision of a court, especially the apex courts, stand on the same pedestal as legislation validly enacted by the National Assembly? And if so, how should such authority be balanced?

■ The Meaning of "Force of Law"
The expression “force of law” is not merely decorative. It signifies that the provision or instrument in question is binding, coercive, and enforceable by state power. For example, Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution states that no treaty shall have the “force of law” unless domesticated by an Act of the National Assembly. This means that treaties, without legislative domestication, remain aspirational or persuasive but not binding.
Similarly, when a court of competent jurisdiction delivers a judgment, Section 287 of the Constitution mandates that all persons and authorities must obey and enforce it. This grants the judgment the same binding character as any Act of the legislature. The judgment becomes part of Nigeria’s normative order.

Section 287 and the Enforcement of Court Decisions

Section 287 provides that:
“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.”

Similar language is used for the Court of Appeal and Federal/State High Courts.
This provision elevates court judgments beyond mere resolutions between private parties. They are not advisory opinions. Rather, they are binding commands, enforceable against the entire legal system, unless overturned on appeal or set aside for valid legal reasons.

♤ Equivalence with Acts of the National Assembly.

The more nuanced question is whether a final, unappealed court decision is equivalent to an Act of the National Assembly.
The answer lies in the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances:
Legislation expresses the will of the people through their representatives.
Judicial decisions interpret and apply the Constitution and statutes to specific facts.
While both have the force of law, they are not identical in form. A court decision does not become a “statute,” but it has equal normative strength: it is binding, enforceable, and must be obeyed.
For instance, if the Supreme Court interprets a statutory provision in a particular way, that interpretation binds every court, authority, and person, unless the National Assembly amends the statute or the Court later departs from its earlier position. In practice, this means a judicial precedent can be as binding as legislation itself.

■ The Balancing Act: Courts and the Legislature

The real balance comes in how both sources of law interact:
1. Judicial supremacy in interpretation
Courts are the final arbiters of what the Constitution and statutes mean. Even Acts of the National Assembly derive their enforceability from constitutional validity, which only the courts can finally pronounce upon.
2. Legislative supremacy in creation of law
While courts interpret, they do not (in principle) make law. Where judicial pronouncements expose gaps or ambiguities, the National Assembly has the constitutional authority to amend, repeal, or enact new legislation to override or clarify the effect of a court’s interpretation.
3. Constitutional supremacy as the anchor
Both judicial decisions and legislation are ultimately subject to the Constitution. If either conflicts with constitutional provisions, it can be struck down (in the case of statutes) or overruled (in the case of precedents).

■ Why This Balance Matters
This balance prevents either branch from descending into tyranny:
If legislation alone were supreme without judicial oversight, the rights of minorities or individuals could easily be trampled by majoritarian laws.
If judicial decisions alone were unchallengeable, courts would become unelected lawmakers, ruling without accountability.
The Nigerian Constitution wisely ensures a dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature, where court decisions have the “force of law” but remain open to legislative modification, provided such modification itself passes the test of constitutionality.

■ Conclusion
To say that judicial decisions have the “force of law” under Section 287 of the Constitution means that they are as binding and enforceable as Acts of the National Assembly. However, they occupy different spaces within the constitutional framework. Legislation creates new norms, while judicial decisions interpret, apply, and sometimes refine them. The balance lies in mutual respect: courts obey statutes unless unconstitutional, and legislatures respect judgments unless overruled by higher judicial authority or corrected through constitutional amendment.
This delicate balance is what sustains Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.