EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND DELEGATED LEGISLATION: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS IN AUSTRALIA, NIGERIA AND THE UNITED STATES

Abstract

This article examines the constitutional limits of executive law-making through a comparative analysis of Australia, Nigeria and the United States. It argues that Executive Orders are constitutionally valid only where they derive authority from the Constitution or enabling legislation. Based on Baxter v Ah Way,1 Trump v. Barbara,2 and Attorney-General of Abia State and 35 Others v Attorney-General of the Federation,3 the research illustrates that executive orders derive their legitimacy from the Constitution and enabling law rather than from inherent executive authority. Adopting doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, it concludes that judicial review continues to be the primary safeguard against the misuse of delegated legislative power and suggests comprehensive statutory regulation of executive orders in Nigeria.