Connect with us

The Oracle

The Oracle: The Plateau State Legislators’ Debacle: Between Law and Justice (Pt. 2)

Published

2 years ago

on

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

In the first part of this piece, we considered the background and grounds for removing legislators and posed the question: what is jurisdiction? We then examined APC’s case at the Election Tribunal after which we reviewed the consequences of determining a mater without jurisdiction. We further restated the reason why only a co-aspirant is competent to complain about primaries which produced a party’s candidate in an election. We reinstated the trite principle of law that a challenge to the conduct of a party primary ids a pre-election matter.
Today, we shall examine the following: the status of the court of appeal as the final court in legislative appeals, the refusal of the court to review the PDP law makers’ case and why the court cannot review or vary its own order made without jurisdiction. We shall also critically the plateau fiasco vis-à-vis the power of a court to review its own judgement given reasons why the Court of Appeal should have done same in the case of the Plateau state legislators. Enjoy.

COURT OF APPEAL AS FINAL COURT ON LEGISLATORS’ MATTERS

It appears that the Court of Appeal being the Court of last resort in respect of all appeals from the decisions of election petition tribunals in disputes arising from the conduct, outcome and legality of National Assembly and States House of Assembly elections becomes functus officio once it delivers its judgement and cannot reopen a matter it has pronounced upon with finality. In other words, a judgment once delivered by the intermediate court on National and State Houses of Assembly matters cannot be varied where it correctly represents what the Court decided. Nor shall the operative or substantive part of such judgement be varied or substituted. See the cases of Oyetibo & Anor v. Oyinloye (1987) LPELR-2883(SC) at 11-13. Dingyadi & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2011) LPELR 950 (SC); Udende v. Suswam & Ors (2023) LPELR-61304 (CA); and Owoo & Ors v. Edet & Anor (2013) LPELR – 22042 (CA).

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S RECENT DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW INSTITUTED BY THE SACKED PDP PLATEAU LAWMAKERS

The sacked Plateau Legislators in an attempt to reclaim their lost positions in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Caleb Mutfwang case and it’s obiter pronouncement on the legislators’ injustice, filed a fresh application before the same Court of Appeal that had dismissed their appeal from the Plateau State Election Tribunal, requesting a review of the said judgement that sacked them. The appellate court however, as expected, on 28th February, 2024, dismissed the suit, describing it as a waste of judicial time, frivolous and lacking in merit. It further slammed a fine of N128 Million Naira (N8 Million per Applicant) on the already beleaguered Applicants.

BUT CAN A COURT THAT ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE FIRST PLACE NOT VARY ITS OWN JUDGEMENT DELIVERED WITHOUT SUCH JURISDICTION BY WAY OF A REVIEW?

The apex court had observed (on the Plateau Legislators’ case, albeit obiter), while delivering the judgment in the Governor Caleb Mutfwang appeal, that the lower tribunal and Court of Appeal erred as they acted without jurisdiction to have entertained the petitions sacking the lawmakers from the PDP over a matter bothering on internal affairs of their party. Couldn’t this issue of lack of jurisdiction as observed by the apex court have been further explored and subjected to the jurisdiction of the same Court of Appeal that delivered the judgement by way of review? Were the legislators wrong to have asked for a review? Let us have some guidance from earlier decisions of the Appellate courts. In Iteogu v. LPDC (2018) LPELR-43845(SC) 18-26, the Applicant had asked the apex court to revisit its decision concerning him which had been decided by the apex court in 2009. This application for revisitation stemmed from the fact that on the 12th July, 2013 and the 13th May, 2014, respectively, the Supreme Court had held in the cases of Aladejobi v. NBA (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 66, and Rotimi Williams Akintokun v. Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal directly from the LPDC. The Applicant’s posture in his case was that in those cases, the apex court had held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain appeals directly from the LPDC. He had therefore urged that there was the need to revisit his own case and declare that the decision or judgment of the apex court delivered in 2009 pertaining to him was given without vires and so set it aside and have his status restored as a legal practitioner. The apex court, per Justice Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC, while dismissing the application for review, held at pages 18 -26, inter alia, that aside the exception of the “slip rule”, the Supreme Court may only depart from its earlier decision in subsequent cases and thereby overrule itself. She emphasized that this:
“does not however mean that the previous decisions in those earlier cases differently decided would be given a new lease of life on account of this new development. The reason for this is self-evident as Oputa JSC stated in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya & Anor. (1989) 5 SCN113: (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274 thus:”We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final.” …. In other words, the Supreme Court enjoys the finality of its decisions. Except for clerical mistakes, accidental slips, or omissions, it seldom re-visits its decisions by way of review, variation or setting aside. Once the Supreme Court has entered judgment in a case, that decision is final and will remain so forever. The law may in the future be amended to affect future matters on the same subject, but for cases decided, that is the end of the matter.” (Emphasis supplied)
See also Anyagham v. FBN PLC (2021) LPELR – 55905 (CA); Emezie & Ors v. Linus & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40514 (CA); and Onuh & Anor v. Ogbe (2019) LPELR-48361 (CA).

THE PLATEAU LEGISLATORS’ FIASCO

In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, was there no remedy for those legislators who were wrongly sacked by the Court of Appeal? It is important to note that 22 PDP members in both chambers of the Nation’s and Plateau State Legislature were sacked by the Election Tribunals and the Court of Appeal, a development that left tongues wagging and ruckus generated across Nigeria. The legislators affected included two Senators – Simon Mwadkwon and Napoleon Bali; four members of the House of Representatives – Dachung Bagos, Beni Lar, Isaac Kwalu, and Peter Gyendeng Ibrahim; and 16 members of the Plateau State House of Assembly. They were all in PDP. Their constituents overwhelmingly voted for them. But the tribunal, supported by the Court of Appeal, felt otherwise. They took away the legislators’ victories and donated same on a platter of gold to the APC legislators who were roundedly trounced at the polls. The Plateau State people’s votes were rightly counted but the courts refused to make the votes count. This is what I have termed “Judocracy” in my OZEKPEDIA neologism, “as a genre of government practised only in Nigeria, where Presidents, Governors, Legislators and LG Chairmen are thrown up as having ‘won’ in an election. Their victory is immediately challenged. They get enmeshed in these legal calisthenics for the next 2 to 3 years of their corruption-ridden governance. Then, suddenly, they are conceived, incubated and delivered in the hallowed Chambers and precincts of our law courts, rather than through the ballot box. The will of the people is thereby subsumed in the decision and judgement of courts of law, the non-representatives of the people”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8ByKVWWj)

SHOULD THIS PLATEAU STATE LEGISLATORS’ DEBACLE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THRIVE UNREMEDIED?

Our case laws are decided based on precedents. Precedent is retrospective and ensures that a given posture is maintained even at the risk that harm may be caused by it.

The apex court in the Mutfwang’s case noted (albeit, by way of obiter), that the Court of Appeal was wrong when it sacked those legislators lawfully elected under the platform of the PDP, as it lacked jurisdiction to do so. However, precedent is saying, “Yes, we admit that there was an error. Nothing can be done about it.” I humbly disagree with this perpetuation of injustice under the thin guise of “my hands are tied”, or “that nothing can be done about it”. Surely, something can be done about it. I agree with Emmanuel Agim, JSC, when he noted in his judgement that, “it is high time the legal profession woke up before it became irrelevant”. This admonition is in tandem with the admonition of venerable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (JSC), in Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274, 275, to the effect that “When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled”. I also find solace in the complimentary and immortal words of Lord Denning in PARKER V. PARKER (1954) 2 All ER 22, where he illuminated thus:
“What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still while the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both.”

Afterall, law is but a mere handmaid to deliver justice, which is why “ubi jus ibi remedium” (Bello v. AG Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR 820). Going by this, I humbly submit that when it comes to the critical issue of the court deciding a case in which it lacked jurisdiction in the first instance, then certainly, such a court has jurisdiction to revisit the said judgement and review it under certain laid down conditions. This is not a blanket or open-ended cheque for exhumation of buried cases. No.

A COURT CAN REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT

Thus, by reason of a long line of decided cases by the Supreme Court itself, a court has the constitutional power to enforce, review or set aside its own judgements under special circumstances as provided for by law. This is not tantamount to the court sitting on appeal over its own judgements. In Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. L.G. C. Ltd (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707), pp. 17-18, paras. D-C, the Supreme Court, per Abba Aji, JSC, held that the court has the power and leeway to set aside its own judgement and rehear a case, inter alia, under the following circumstances:
“…where any of the other parties obtained judgement by fraud or deceit…. When judgement was given without jurisdiction…”.

WHY THE PLATEAU STATE LEGISLATORS’ JUDGEMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

Surely, the judgement in the Plateau Legislators’ matter was dubiously obtained as there was no disobedience to any court order at all as rightly found by the Supreme Court in the sister Mutfwang case. All the cases had emanated from the same facts and circumstances. Secondly, both the Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to have entertained the Legislators’ case the way they did in the first instance.

The reason or rationale behind this position in the above Stanbic IBTC case was graphically painted by Oputa, JSC, in Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274, 275, inter alia, thus:
“We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions, similarly, the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled. This court has the power to overrule itself (and had done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error.” (Emphasis supplied).
Thus, where a judgment of a court was obtained without jurisdiction; or is tainted with illegality; or was obtained by fraud, the court surely has the vires, constitutional power and jurisdiction to revisit such judgement, even if time had since elapsed. This is because time cannot and does not run against illegality or fraud. A party cannot be allowed to benefit, or continue to benefit from the product of its own illegality and void conduct. This position was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Nwosu v. APP & Ors (2020) 16 NWLR (PT 1749) 28, where it held thus, through many of its justices as follows:

Per Eko, JSC: “No person is allowed to benefit from illegality as illegality confers no right”

Per Peter-Odili, JSC: “It is difficult in the light of the damming facts well pushed in this appeal wherein illegality was enthroned to be surveyed into endorsing of such acts and to allow the perpetrator of such profane acts to derive or profit from his own wrong.”

Per Amina Augie, JSC: “The court cannot close its eyes to it (illegality) and allow itself to be used as a tool to perpetuate illegality, in whatever form or guise”

See also the cases of GTB V. Innoson (Nig.) Ltd (2022) LPELR-56657 (SC); Enterprise Bank Ltd v. Aroso & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24720 (SC); Oladosu & Anor v. Olaojoyetan & Anor (2012) LPELR – 8676 (CA) and Eco Bank v. Teak Naturale Investment Ltd & Ors (2017) LPELR – 42389 (CA).

The Court of Appeal which was approached by the grieving PDP Legislators sure had the power and jurisdiction to have calmly looked at and reviewed its judgements which have since been irretrievably punctured by the Nigerian people and the apex court itself (albeit, obiter). It should have meticulously reviewed its earlier judgements, all of which were delivered without following judicial precedents as laid down by the Supreme Court on the very issues dealt with in those appeals. Law is about justice. Being Siamese twins, one without the other is an orphan. The Plateau Legislators’ cases hallmarked a dangerous precedent where neither the law nor justice was followed or attained. The Court of Appeal ought to have seized the opportunity of the fresh application to correct itself. If for nothing else, at least for the sake of posterity, justice, fairplay, equity and good conscience. I so humbly submit.

(Concluded).

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Oracle

The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 2)

Published

6 days ago

on

June 5, 2026

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural part of this piece was necessarily foundational: it defined ‘human rights’; ‘economic social and cultural rights’ and also reviewed historical assault on economic rights by military juntas in Nigeria. Today we continue same theme after which we shall delve into social and cultural rights and equally examine their justiciability. Enjoy.

ASSAULT ON ECONOMIC RIGHTS BY MILITARY JUNTAS (continues)

The opaque commercialization and privatization of economic policies that were originally introduced by successive military regimes in Nigeria were later to be fully and absolutely incorporated and implemented in the scheme of things by the Obasanjo administration from 1999-2007. For example, the Obasanjo administration illegally privatized NNPC, NITEL, NEPA, Federal Hotels, strategic public institutions and other public corporations, without necessarily following due process as is required under a constitutional democracy. This privatization and commercialization exercise was done with the ulterior motive of satisfying the whims and caprices of a certain cabal of politicians at the expense of the vast majority of the masses. The commanding heights of our National economy were privatized to friends, relations, school mates, surrogates and lackeys of Government officials and their compradors.

SOCIAL RIGHTS

These include right to quality education, right to security of employment, access to free medical care, right to drink clean pipe-borne water, right to electricity, right to information, right to good roads, right to good shelter and clothing, etc. These are also known as basic social amenities, which are necessarily incidental to decent and reasonable existence. We are already in the 21st century where a serious global campaign is on going for mass literacy. This campaign for good and qualitative education is predicated on the well known truism that education leads to development in all its ramifications.

Has the Nigerian Government done enough in the area of fundamentals of the importance of education? The answer in good conscience is a capital “No”. Since the days of “Ali-must-go protests (1978), education has suffered tremendously as a result of its commercialization, thus making it an exclusive preserve of the rich. The then National union of Nigerian Students (NUNS), under the leadership of late Mr. Segun Oni demonstrated its abhorrence for this and strenuously protested against the commercialization of education by the then Commissioner for Education, Amadu Ali. Unfortunately, however, this noble struggle of Nigeria Students led to indiscriminate shooting, maiming and killing of innocent and harmless students who were essentially the sons and daughters of the poor. All Federal Universities were promptly closed down following the mass protests. These tragedies occurred during the inglorious days of the military dictatorship of Obasanjo. That was perhaps the first time when Nigerian students signposted their determination to assert their inalienable right to education. Till date, education is still in shambles as all successive military and civilian Administrations have done little or nothing to improve it. While the children of the rich and people in Government attend Ivy league schools both locally and in foreign countries, the mass majority of children of the poor receive half-baked education in half completed buildings, without writing or learning materials.

In fact, since the evolution of Nigeria as a country and indeed since the attainment of political independence, no government has sincerely attempted the convocation of an Education Summit where all stakeholders are permitted to contribute intellectually to the production of a blue print for sustainable quality education that will meet our yearnings and aspirations as a rapidly developing African Country. It is an indisputable fact that without quality education, life will be of no avail and consequently, development will be retarded.

Another epochal struggle of the later National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), for improved living standard and conditions in tertiary institutions was the 1990 agitation for the provision of the most basic needs on campuses, essentials such as pipe – borne water, electricity and laboratory equipment just to enhance quality education. The response of the then Babangida Military Junita was a far cry from the legitimate demands of the students. Between March/April, 1990, the Federal Government decided to take an IMF loan of $120m for the Federal Universities and this unilateral and retrogressive decision triggered off violent protests and agitation from the academic community. The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), actively protested against the decision to take loan from the world Bank, essentially because the conditionalities attached thereto would worsen the already crisis – ridden educational situation in the country. Not less than three Federal Universities were closed down following the massive protests that greeted the decision to take the said IMF loan. Some students of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, were arrested and arraigned before an Ile – Ife Magistrate Court for charges of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. The then Education Minister, Prof. Babs Aliyu Fafunwa, while trying to justify the essence of the loan stated that it was meant for the restoration of the universities, but this explanation was not acceptable to Nigerian Students as well as the Academic Staff Union of Universities, who that knew the loan would further deny Nigerians a right of access to the already collapsed educational system. All these were the by-products of SAP, an anti-people program that was initiated by General Babangida’s Military regime.

CULTURAL RIGHTS

Culture has been defined by Bairamian J. in Lewis vs. Bankole, as a mirror of accepted usage. It is a way of life of people, which has gained acceptance among them over the years. The great sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo of blessed memory, once said that:

“Culture is the tap root of every society and if culture decays, that society will have to develop parasitic features for it to continue to exist”.

Cultural heritage has many aspects. For example, cultural songs and dance, cultural foods, cultural traditional marriage, cultural dresses and festivals. Nigerian’s multi-ethnic groups presuppose the existence of cultural pluralism. This means that as there are many different ethnic groups, so also there are different and diverse cultures in Nigeria. It is therefore necessary to preserve and promote cultural rights among the various ethnic Nationalities in Nigeria, so as to enable Nigerians participate actively in their cultural life. This would also foster our philosophy of national integration and diversity. An examination of the Nigerian Society in the pre-colonial era will reveal how well preserved, promoted and respected our cultural heritage was by all the paramount traditional rulers of the time. For example, the Benin Empire during the reign of Oba Overamwen Nogbaisi earned continental applause as a result of the Oba’s dedication and commitment to the promotion and preservation of the Benin cultural heritage. The Oyo Empire under the Alaafin of Oyo was also feared and respected by all and sundry for its commitment to the preservation of their cultural heritage. The Hausa/Fulani struggled for decades for the preservation and promotion of their cultural heritage. This was copiously acknowledged by all British Colonial Administrators in Nigeria during the colonial era.

JUSTICEABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended made copious provisions for Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Sections 13 – 24 of the constitution are basically on such all important issues and matters like fundamental obligations of the Government, the Government and the people, politics, economic, social, educational, foreign policy, environmental objectives, directives on Nigerian culture, obligations of mass media, National ethnic and duties of the citizens. Section 16 (1) – (4) of the constitution deals essentially with economic objectives, while section 17 (1) – (3) deals with social objectives; and section 21 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides for directives of Nigerian culture.

A cursory look at the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, quickly reveals that the Government, gave these rights and privileges with the left hand, and took them back with the right hand. This is akin to the proverbial Greek gift. It is submitted with respect that, the non-justificiability of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy under the 1999 Constitution appears to be a conspiracy by the state and its preferred minions to deny the Nigerian citizens, particularly the masses, the enjoyment of their well deserved wealth by many public officers and Government functionaries. A careful consideration of the diary of looting in Nigeria will reveal how public officers in connivance with elected political office holders have embezzled and mismanaged public funds meant for provision of infrastructural facilities and other developmental projects. But since the 1999 constitution as imposed by themselves and their military collaborators has prohibited any person from challenging or seeking to enforce the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, the looting or siphoning of public funds will continue with impunity and the perpetrators will always find an escape route. The average Nigerian continues to wallow in abject penury. The recent revelations of looted billions of naira constitute and eye – opener to this tragedy.

We must encourage and promote the enforcement of all the Fundamental Objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy as they are meant to enhance the living standard of all and sundry.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others”. – Jonathan Sacks.

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 1)

Published

2 weeks ago

on

May 29, 2026

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Generally speaking, economic, social and cultural rights are part and parcel of inalienable human rights with which man is naturally endowed upon birth. In a responsible and ideal society, all the human rights including economic, social and cultural rights are recognized, respected, guaranteed, enforced, implemented and even prompted by all and sundry, the state inclusive. These rights which have been universally recognized are otherwise known as ECOSOC RIGHTS.

However, before discussing in detail, economic, social and cultural rights which constitute the gravamen of this write-up, it is pertinent to deal with terminological issues by attempting to know the meaning of a ‘Right’. What is a “Right”?

DEFINITION OF TERMS

“Right” is a versatile term meaning correct, suitable, or morally proper, as well as indicating the direction opposite to left, or a legal/moral entitlement. It signifies accuracy.
According to Osbornes Law Dictionary of current English, a Right is defined as:

“An interest recognized and protected by the law, respect for which is a duty and disregard of which is wrong”

This definition is on all fours with that of Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition, page 1347) which defines ‘Right’ as:

“That which is proper under the law, morality or ethics. Right also means to know right from wrong, something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle-the right of liberty. A power, privilege, of immunity secured to a person by law -the right to depose of one’s estate. A legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act; the violation of which is a wrong-, a breach of duty infringes one’s right. The interest, claim or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property-a debtor’s rights in collateral-publishing rights. The privilege of corporate shareholders to purchase newly issued securities in amounts proportionate to their holdings. The negotiable certificate granting such a privilege to a corporate shareholder”

A legal scholar, John Chipman Gray, in his book “The Nature and Sources of law, page 8-9 (2d ed. 1921)”, opines that:

“Right is a correlative to duty; where there is no duty there can be no right. But the converse is not necessarily true. There may be duties without rights. In order for a duty to create a right, it must be a duty to act or forbear. Thus, among those duties which have rights, corresponding to them do not come within the duties, if such there be, which call for an inward state of mind, as distinguished from external acts or forbearances. It is only to acts and forbearances that others have a right. It may be our duty to love our neighbor, but he has no right to our love”.

Ordinarily, right means power of free action. It refers, inter alia, to the economic, social and cultural advantages or benefits to which man has a just claim morally, legally and ethically. It is different and distinct from a privilege. From the above definitions only a right recognized and protected by law can be considered as a right; Otherwise, it is just a privilege.

WHAT THEN ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights strictly speaking are those sets of rights referred to as inalienable, which are also specifically and particularly recognized and protected by law. Every human being is naturally endowed with and is entitled to the enjoyment of such rights except by due process of law. They are human because they are fundamental.

Another legal scholar, M. Cranston in his book titled: “Human Rights: Real and Supposed quoted in D/D, Rapheal (ed) Political Theory and the Rights of man (1967) Bloomington, Indian University Press page 52”. Opined that:

“A human right is something of which no one may be deprived without a great affront to justice. These are certain deeds, which should never be done, certain freedoms, which should never be invaded, something’s which are supremely sacred”.

One of the most distinguished jurists ever produced by Nigeria, Kayode Eso JSC, re-affirmed the importance of human rights in RANSOME KUTI V. A-G OF THE FEDERATION (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 211, 230, in the following words:

“it is a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which in fact is antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary condition to a civilized existence… and what has been done by our constitutions…. is to have these rights enshrined in the constitution so that the rights could be “immutable” to the extent of the “non immutability” of the constitution itself”.

From the above definitions of human rights, it is obvious that those rights that are termed fundamental human rights and which are specifically codified in our statutes particularly Chapter IV of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, are not only recognized and protected, but are also enforceable in law courts.

WHAT ARE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS?

These are simply rights that enable man to have a reasonable and decent standard of living in the society. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, every citizen in Nigeria shall be afforded the opportunity to develop his full potentials economically, socially and culturally to the utmost of his ability. Unfortunately, however, the contrary is the case as these rights are not in any enforceable in a court of law. This informs the reason why some countries of the world have codified some fundamental laws regarding the implementation and enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights in their grundnorm, the constitution. The right to a decent living is unarguably a corollary to the right to life. To be saddled with less than decent living standard is to demote human beings to the base level of animals.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS

An Economic right is nothing but the right of man to be gainfully employed in order to share a decent and adequate standard of living in the society. The state is enjoined to ensure the provision of job opportunities to all persons without discrimination on grounds of belief, religion, gender, political and ethnic affiliations. In this respect, it is expected that the Government should provide an enabling economic environment to improve on the living conditions of the citizens. Without this, life, as in the Hobbesian state of nature, would be “short, nasty and brutish”.

ASSAULT ON ECONOMIC RIGHTS BY MILITARY JUNTAS

Unfortunately, the economic rights of many Nigerian citizens have been seriously undermined by successive military and civilian Administrations (See Annual Report on Human Rights in Nigeria, 1990-Civil Liberty Organisation (CLO).). In the locust days of the General Ibrahim Babangida administration, the nationally acclaimed maximum dictator, and self-styled “evil genius”, the Nigerian economy was badly managed and terribly crises-ridden, thus subjecting poor Nigerian citizens to squalor and abject penury. It was during the tenure of this military junta that subsidy in petroleum products was removed and left to the vagaries of international market forces. Nigerians were living from hand to mouth; both the employed and unemployed. Inflation geometrically increased and consequently the poor living conditions of Nigerian citizens became aggravated. All the civil liberties organizations, Student Unions and the Nigerian Labour Congress massively mobilized Nigerians to protest against the military Government policy of removing oil subsidy. This did not in any way deter him. In fact, the protests led to the arrest and incarceration of many human rights and pro-democracy activities. Many died in the struggle.

When the Babangida regime eventually responded to the economic crisis in Nigeria with the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), the implementation of which rather aggravated the living conditions of a vast majority of the citizens who were then living below poverty line, he went scot free. The United Nations Development Project (UNDP) Report on Human Development better captured this sorry state to which Nigerians were subjected by the Ibrahim Babangida regime in its report which scored Nigeria 0.322 out of a maximum Human Development Index of (HD10 1.0). That report automatically placed our country last in terms of citizen’s access to resources needed for a decent standard of living, literally levels and average life expectancy in a given country. The value of Naira also experienced a monumental decline or downward slide vis-à-vis the dollar and other international currencies under the Second Tier Foreign Exchange Market (SFEM).

Another negative effect of SAP to Nigerians was the massive loss of employment as many Nigerian workers of various levels were laid off. It was reliably reported that not less than 10, 000 junior workers of Julius Berger Construction Company in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT), were unlawfully dismissed simply because they embarked on a strike action to demand for better working conditions. This further worsened the alarming abject poverty in the country.

With the advent of Democracy in Nigeria in 1999, (one would have expected an aggressive and radical transformation of the economy in such a way that adequate job opportunities would be created to quickly arrest the alarming hunger and poverty that had ravaged the Nigerian masses). Unfortunately, the civilian administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo did nothing practical to ameliorate the deplorable living conditions in Nigeria. Instead, his administration introduced social and economic policies that were not only strangulating in nature, but exclusively impoverished the Nigerian masses who started living like “walking corpses”, as Ayi Kwei Ama once posited, in his book, “The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born”. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual”. (Thomas Jefferson).

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (Pt. 4)

Published

3 weeks ago

on

May 22, 2026

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last discourse on this series, we examined the procedure for enforcement of fundamental rights, including applications for leave; as well as the substantive application itself and the reactions that follow. Today, we shall continues from where we stopped with the substantive application itself and the reactions thereto and later x-ray the applications to squash proceedings; applications for production and/or release of persons restrained; orders for bail, production and access to medication. Please read on.

SUBSTANTIVE APPLICATION: THE MOTION OR SUMMONS (Continues)

In the case of LAWRENCE OLUSEGUN ADEYEMO V. C.O.P, OYO STATE ([2021] LPELR-56272(CA)), the applicant requested the court for a writ of habeas corpus under order 2 of the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) rules 1979 which provision enjoined the applicant to serve all parties who are or might be interested in the proceedings. Although the affected party had put up appearance, but raised a preliminary objection to the application for non-compliance with the statutory conditions. Babalakin. J. (as he then was) struck out the application on the ground that order 2(1)(4) is mandatory whether the application is for mandamus, certiorari, or habeas corpus.

However the Supreme Court in recent times in respect of the fundamental rights enforcements has favourably leaned towards the equitable principle of “Ubi Jus Ubi remedium”, therefore looking more at the substance rather than the form. Hence the liberalization of the procedure for the enforcement of fundamental rights as exposed in the case of ABACHA V. FAWEHINMI ((2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228) and UBI UJONG INAH & ORS V. MARCUS UKOI ((2001) (CA) 41981.

APPLICATION TO QUASH ANY PROCEEDINGS

Sometimes it may be necessary for an applicant by way of certiorari to apply to the court for an order that such proceedings be removed from a particular court or tribunal to another court for the purpose of being quashed for lack of power and/or jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings or make such order.

However, an applicant shall not be able to question the validity of any order, warrant, commitment, conviction, inquisition or record unless before the hearing of his application (Motion or summons), he has served a certified copy (CTC) thereof together with a Copy of the application on the Attorney-General of the Federation or of the State in which the applicant is being heard (as the case may be).

The court in granting an application seeking to quash proceedings, shall direct that the order, proceedings, conviction or the records of an inquisition be quashed forthwith upon being removed into the court hearing the application.

APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION AND/OR RELEASE OF PERSON RESTRAINED

By virtue of Order 4 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, where an applicant complains of wrongful or unlawful detention, the court or judge to whom the application is made ex-parte may make an order forthwith for his release from such detention.

The court may also direct that an originating summons (as in form 2) be issued or that an application therefore be made by notice of motion (as in form 3). The court may also as it deem fit adjourn the ex-parte application so that notice thereof may be given to the person against whom the order for the release of the applicant is sought.

ORDER FOR BAIL, PRODUCTION, AND ACCESS TO MEDICATION

Pursuant to order 4 of the bail application, the court upon application may grant to the detainee reliefs including bail, production of the detainee, access to mediation etc.

The court may grant bail at ex-parte stage, pending the substantive application. Where an applicant complains of wrongful or unlawful detention, the court may subject to its discretion order that the person restrained be produced in court. And where such order is so made, it shall constitute a sufficient warrant to any superintendent of a prison, police officer in charge of a police station, police officer in charge of the complainant or any other person responsible for his detention, to produce or ensure the production of the person so restrained or detained in court.

For the purpose of enforcing a person’s fundamental rights, no matter where a detainee is kept he can be allowed access to his personal physician or medically prescribed drugs.

It suffices to note here, that once an order has been made by the court pursuant to the Enforcement Rules, and for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights provided for in the constitution, such order must be complied with. Failure to obey or comply with any order so made by the court under these rules will incur proceedings for the committal of the party disobeying such an order.

CONCLUSION

Without any controversy, the idea of human rights and personal liberties has become firm and secured. The universality and immutability of human rights are now globally accepted. Consequently, any nation that slacks or shyies away from the diligent protection and enforcement of human rights stand the precarious risk of being shunned by decent and civilised nations. The United Nations seems to have captured the importance and primacy of the issue of human rights and its protection when it poignantly stated as follows:

“Human Rights and fundamental freedoms are the birth right of all human beings, their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Government” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

It is the duty of every Government everywhere and every courts of law in every jurisdiction to promote, protect, uphold, and ensure enforcement of fundamental Human rights at all times, because these rights encapsulate the very essence of man.

The end.

THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK

“Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian – a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer”. – Pope Benedict XVI.

“Because no matter who we are or where we come from, we’re all entitled to the basic human rights of clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and healthy land to call home”. – Martin Luther King III

“Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities”. – Pope Francis.

Continue Reading

Trending