1. Much juristic pen has flowed in a bid to unravel the puzzle otherwise called administrative law. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree that much has been written in an attempt to explain administrative law. Administrative law is a branch of public law that governs the activities of government agencies. It focuses on the rules, regulations, and decisions made by these agencies in relation to their powers and duties.
Scholars have attempted to define administrative law, but no single definition captures its full scope. Some define it as the body of law that controls government power, while others see it as the law that regulates the administration of public policies. Due to its broad and evolving nature, administrative law remains complex, making it difficult to fit into one clear definition.
One reason administrative law is considered a puzzle is its overlap with constitutional law. While constitutional law defines government structure and rights, administrative law deals with the exercise of those powers. Also, the growth of government agencies and their increasing influence in law-making, adjudication, and enforcement have expanded the scope of administrative law, making it difficult to clearly define.
However, despite these complexities, administrative law is essential for ensuring fairness, accountability, and efficiency in governance. It provides checks and balances on government agencies, preventing abuse of power and ensuring that they operate within the limits of the law.
2. Compare administrative law with Separation of Powers and Rule of Law.
Administrative law, separation of powers, and the rule of law are all principles that guide governance and ensure accountability. However, they differ in their focus and application.
- Administrative Law: This is the body of law that regulates government agencies. It ensures that agencies act within their authority and that their decisions are fair, reasonable, and legal. It covers areas such as delegated legislation, judicial review, and administrative procedures.
- Separation of Powers: This principle states that government power should be divided among three branches—legislative, executive, and judiciary—to prevent the concentration of power. Each branch has distinct functions: the legislature makes laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them. Administrative law sometimes conflicts with this principle because government agencies (which are part of the executive) often make regulations (a legislative function) and adjudicate disputes (a judicial function).
- Rule of Law: This principle ensures that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law. It prevents arbitrary power and guarantees legal certainty, equality before the law, and protection of individual rights. Administrative law supports the rule of law by ensuring that government agencies follow due process and do not exceed their powers.
In summary, while administrative law regulates how government agencies operate, the separation of powers distributes government functions, and the rule of law ensures legal fairness. All three work together to maintain a just and accountable government.
3. As a student of administrative law, what is your submission about the vexed issue on restructuring in Nigeria?
The issue of restructuring in Nigeria has been widely debated. Restructuring refers to the process of redistributing political, economic, and administrative powers among different levels of government to promote efficiency, fairness, and national unity.
Nigeria operates a federal system, but in practice, power is heavily concentrated at the center. Many argue that this system is unfair to states and local governments, as they depend on the federal government for funding and policy direction. Advocates of restructuring believe that giving more autonomy to states will encourage development, reduce ethnic tensions, and improve governance.
From an administrative law perspective, restructuring would require legal and constitutional reforms. It may involve:
- Devolution of Powers – Transferring some powers from the federal government to the states to allow for more local decision-making.
- Resource Control – Granting states greater control over their natural resources, rather than relying on allocations from the central government.
- State Policing – Allowing states to manage their security forces to tackle crime more effectively.
- Judicial Autonomy – Ensuring state courts have greater independence to handle legal matters within their jurisdictions.
However, restructuring also has challenges, such as resistance from those benefiting from the current system, constitutional barriers, and the risk of increased sectionalism. While restructuring can promote better governance, it must be carefully planned to ensure national stability and inclusiveness.
4a. State the recommendation of Lord Donoughmore’s Committee with respect to the systematization of the nomenclatures of delegated legislation.
Lord Donoughmore’s Committee was set up in the UK in 1932 to study delegated legislation and make recommendations for improving its control and structure. The committee recognized that delegated legislation was necessary due to the increasing complexity of governance, but it also warned against its misuse.
The committee recommended that delegated legislation should be systematized into different categories based on their nature and function. It proposed a clear distinction between:
- Statutory Instruments – Regulations made under the authority of an Act of Parliament.
- Rules and Orders – Detailed rules for implementing laws, often made by government ministers.
- Bye-laws – Local laws made by local authorities and public bodies.
- Regulations – Specific provisions dealing with administrative functions.
- Directions and Instructions – Guidelines issued by ministers or agencies for internal governance.
The committee also emphasized the need for parliamentary oversight to prevent excessive use of delegated legislation.
4b. Delegation of law-making functions has been severely deprecated by scholars. Outline 5 reasons for this.
Many scholars criticize the delegation of law-making functions because it raises concerns about accountability and democratic principles. The key reasons include:
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy – Delegated legislation is made by unelected officials rather than elected representatives, reducing democratic control.
- Risk of Abuse of Power – Government agencies may misuse their legislative powers to impose unfair or arbitrary rules.
- Lack of Parliamentary Scrutiny – Many delegated laws are passed without thorough review, leading to potential errors and excesses.
- Complexity and Confusion – Delegated legislation often results in too many regulations, making the legal system difficult for citizens to understand.
- Judicial Limitations – Courts may find it difficult to control delegated legislation due to broad discretionary powers given to government agencies.
Despite these concerns, delegated legislation remains essential for effective governance, as long as there are adequate checks and balances.
5d. Name 5 nomenclatures given to delegated legislation.
Delegated legislation is known by different names depending on its nature and the authority under which it is made. The five common nomenclatures include:
- Statutory Instruments – Laws made by government ministers under the authority of an enabling Act.
- Bye-laws – Regulations made by local authorities or public corporations.
- Rules and Orders – Administrative rules issued by government departments.
- Regulations – Detailed provisions made under an Act of Parliament to clarify legal requirements.
- Directions and Instructions – Guidelines issued by government agencies to ensure compliance with laws.
Each of these forms of delegated legislation serves a specific purpose in the legal system.