Judicial Review, Administrative Law, and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Nigeria

This dissertation provides an original jurisprudential and empirical analysis of judicial review as a mechanism for administrative law enforcement and fundamental rights protection in Nigeria, drawing on evidence across all six geopolitical zones. While the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 provides a comprehensive framework for fundamental rights enforcement, the practical accessibility and effectiveness of judicial review in checking administrative abuses remain critically understudied from a public administration perspective. The dissertation employs a mixed doctrinal and empirical methodology, combining systematic analysis of 500 judicial review cases decided by the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal between 2019 and 2023 with a survey of 320 litigants, lawyers, and court administrators and 40 in-depth interviews with judges and constitutional scholars. Quantitative case outcome analysis using logistic regression and qualitative doctrine tracing provide the primary analytical tools. Dworkinian Rights as Trumps Theory and Habermas's Discourse Theory of Law provide the theoretical anchors. The dissertation proposes the Judicial Review Effectiveness Model (JREM), which identifies judicial independence, legal standing accessibility, case processing speed, and remedy enforceability as the four pillars of effective administrative judicial review. Findings reveal that while jurisprudential quality has improved, physical and financial barriers to court access, prolonged litigation timescales averaging 4.7 years per case, and poor compliance with court orders by government agencies systematically undermine judicial review's protective function. Original constitutional and administrative reform proposals target each identified JREM pillar. Keywords: judicial review, administrative law, fundamental rights, Nigeria, constitutional reform.