Examining the Analytical Basis of Fiscal Federalism Disputes Between the Federal Government and States at the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fiscal federalism disputes between the federal government and state governments in Nigeria have generated a distinctive and analytically rich body of Supreme Court jurisprudence, involving questions of constitutional revenue allocation, intergovernmental fiscal relations, and the distribution of legislative competence over taxation. The Rivers State VAT litigation of 2021, the Resource Control cases, and earlier natural resource revenue sharing disputes collectively define a constitutional jurisprudence of fiscal federalism that this study systematically examines. This study analytically examines the Supreme Court of Nigeria's jurisprudence on fiscal federalism disputes from 2002 to 2023, identifying doctrinal patterns, constitutional interpretive approaches, and the adequacy of judicial resolution frameworks for intergovernmental fiscal conflicts. A doctrinal methodology with systematic case analysis is applied, reviewing all identified Supreme Court decisions involving federal-state fiscal disputes, constitutional text analysis of Sections 162 to 168, and comparative judicial approaches to fiscal federalism from India and Canada. The study evaluates the Court's use of structural constitutional interpretation and cooperative federalism principles in resolving fiscal disputes. Available constitutional law literature identifies the Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation of the derivation principle and its deference to federal legislative supremacy in fiscal matters as the most analytically contested features of existing jurisprudence. The Fiscal Federalism Constitutional Theory and the Cooperative Federalism Doctrine provide the analytical reference. Findings inform constitutional amendment proposals on state fiscal autonomy. Keywords: fiscal federalism, Supreme Court, revenue allocation, constitutional law, Nigeria.