SEPERATION OF POWERS IN NIGERIA: MYTH OR REALITY

ABSTRACT The separation of powers has traditionally been viewed as a core feature of democratic systems. First formulated by Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu, the principle holds that governmental authority should be divided among three independent branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—each entrusted with specific duties and equipped with mechanisms to restrain the others. The underlying goal of this structure is to create a balanced distribution of power that prevents authoritarian control and protects individual freedoms under the rule of law. Yet, despite its theoretical strength, a pressing question remains: does this separation truly function as intended in practice, or is it largely an idealized concept that comforts rather than reflects political reality? This paper delves into that question by analyzing how the separation of powers plays out in practice. It investigates whether governments maintain firm divisions between branches or whether political factors—such as party loyalty, competition for authority, and tactical cooperation—lead to overlapping roles and shared influence. Through a comparative study of constitutional models and real-world examples from multiple countries, this research highlights moments when branches of government either work together, come into conflict, or exert subtle influence over each other—sometimes in ways that contradict the theoretical model. A case in point is the executive branch’s ability to sway judicial decisions.