By Akpokona Omafuaire
More than two decades after Nigeria’s return to democratic governance, a fundamental question continues to confront the nation’s institutions: Who has the final authority in a constitutional democracy— the courts or state agencies?
Read Also: Okuama-Ewu: Community declares 17 soldiers killed along Forcados River
That question has resurfaced with renewed urgency following the continued detention of the Okuama elders despite a court order directing their unconditional release, a development that has triggered concerns among legal practitioners, civil rights advocates and constitutional scholars about respect for the rule of law.
For many observers, the issue transcends the fate of the detained community leaders. It strikes at the heart of Nigeria’s democratic experiment and raises troubling questions about the willingness of powerful institutions to submit to judicial authority.
A Community Caught in a National Tragedy
The Okuama crisis began in March 2024 when 17 military personnel, including senior officers, were brutally killed while on alleged peace mission in Okuama, Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State. The killings shocked the nation and prompted a massive military response and complete destruction of the community.
In the months that followed, the military arrested Prof Arthur Ekpekpo, Chief Belvis Adogbo, Mr James Oghoroko, Dennis Okugbaye, Dennis Amalaka, and Mrs Mabel Owhemu between August 18 & 19, 2024 without arraignment or trail of any form.
As a result, Pa James Oghoroko died in detention while Pa Dennis Okugbaye was released after critically taken ill as a result of alleged torture.
While the military maintained that the arrests were necessary to bring perpetrators to justice, families of the detainees and human rights organisations argued that the elders were being held without sufficient evidence linking them to the killings.
The controversy deepened when the Warri Federal High Court on June 10, 2026 ordered their unconditional release. Yet, despite the court’s directive, the elders remained in custody, igniting public debate over whether security agencies can lawfully disregard judicial pronouncements.
Hyeladzira Nganjiwa, the presiding judge, gave the order while ruling on the motion filed under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Nganjiwa directed that the respondents in the case should be immediately served the enrolled order. The presiding judge adjourned the case to July 13, 2026, for the continuation of the hearing on the substantive matter.
The fears are heightened following the military earlier disobedience to same Court order for production of the detainees in court for trial.
When Court Orders Become Mere Suggestions
Dr. Jonathan Ekperusi, a legal expert warn that the danger of selective obedience to court orders extends beyond any particular case.
In every democracy, courts serve as the ultimate interpreters of the law. Their authority rests not on military might or executive power but on public confidence that their decisions will be respected and enforced. “When state institutions choose which court orders to obey, the entire justice system is weakened,” said a Lagos-based constitutional lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The concern is particularly significant when the institution involved is the military, an organisation vested with enormous powers but constitutionally subordinate to civilian authority.
Section 1 of Nigeria’s Constitution establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over all persons and authorities. Legal scholars argue that this provision leaves little room for ambiguity: neither the executive, the legislature nor the military is exempt from judicial oversight.
National Security Versus Rule of Law
Supporters of the military’s position argue that the extraordinary nature of the Okuama killings warrants caution.
The murder of 17 military personnel was not an ordinary criminal incident. It represented one of the deadliest attacks on Nigerian soldiers in recent years and understandably generated pressure on security agencies to identify and prosecute those responsible.
For many Nigerians, therefore, the military’s determination to pursue justice is understandable.
However, Femi Falana SAN, a constitutional law expert insists that national security concerns cannot become a blanket justification for disregarding court orders.
Across democratic societies, security agencies are expected to conduct investigations within the framework of the law. The legitimacy of state power derives not merely from its ability to enforce order but from its adherence to legal norms. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of democracy is that even the pursuit of justice must itself be lawful.
Echoes of a Familiar Pattern
The Okuama case is not occurring in isolation. Over the years, several government institutions have been accused of ignoring or delaying compliance with court judgments, particularly in politically sensitive or high-profile matters.
From prolonged detentions despite bail orders to disputes over electoral and administrative rulings, concerns about selective compliance have become recurring themes in Nigeria’s governance landscape.
For critics, the continued detention of the Okuama elders represents another chapter in a troubling pattern where institutional interests sometimes appear to supersede judicial directives.
The consequence, is a gradual erosion of public trust in both the courts and the broader democratic system.
“If citizens begin to believe that court judgments have no practical effect, confidence in lawful dispute resolution weakens,” Pastor Egedegbe noted .
The Human Cost
Beyond the constitutional arguments are the lives directly affected by the impasse.
Families of the detained elders continue to face uncertainty, while members of the Okuama community remain caught between grief, suspicion and displacement.
For them, the debate is not simply about constitutional principles but about freedom, justice and the ability to rebuild their lives after months of turmoil.
Human rights organisations have repeatedly argued that prolonged detention without compliance with judicial orders risks violating fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to personal liberty and fair hearing.
A Test for Democratic Institutions
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the controversy is what it reveals about the state of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
The military occupies a vital position in safeguarding national security. Yet democratic governance requires that even institutions entrusted with extraordinary powers remain subject to constitutional checks and balances. The framers of Nigeria’s Constitution envisioned a system in which no authority would operate beyond the reach of the law. Courts were established not merely to settle disputes but to ensure that power is exercised within legal boundaries.
The continued detention of the Okuama elders despite a judicial order has therefore become a litmus test for the country’s commitment to constitutionalism.
At stake is more than the fate of a group of community leaders. The credibility of judicial authority, the integrity of democratic governance and public confidence in the rule of law all hang in the balance.
As Nigerians await a resolution, one question continues to resonate across legal and political circles: In a constitutional democracy, can any institution—including the military—place itself above the law?
The answer may ultimately determine not only the outcome of the Okuama case but also the strength of Nigeria’s democratic foundations.
