By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

We commenced this episode last week with a definition of the court and its functions. We also looked at the meaning of judgement, the different kinds of judgements and the modalities for enforcing monetary judgements. Today we shall continue and conclude with the role of the court in enforcing judgements. Enjoy.

Modalities for Enforcement of Monetary judgments (continues)

Afterwards, the sales of the property can only occur at the expiration of 15 days from date of attachment, unless the judgment debtor requests otherwise in writing. The above application for a writ of fi fa is initiated by way of a motion on notice.

Garnishee Proceedings

A garnishee proceeding is when the judgment debtor has money due to him in possession of another person, such as Bank or other financial institutions. Under this procedure, the court will order that third party or the financial institution; the garnishee, based on an application filed by the judgment creditor (the garnishor) to pay the judgment debtor’s money in their possession to the to the court. The court upon receipt of the money from the third party shall subsequently pay it to the judgment creditor as settlement of the judgment debt (See Sections 83 – 92 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act.).

The judgment creditor initiates this process through a motion ex parte, for an order nisi, which is a conditional order, compelling the garnishee to appear before the court and show reasonable cause why he should not be made to pay the debt to the creditor. If the garnishee fails to show cause, an order nisi may be made absolute and the sum awarded will be judgment will be enforceable against him, as if he were the judgment debtor and the appropriate writ of execution may be issued against him.

Judgment Summons

Under the Judgment summon the judgment creditor initiates the process to court for the issuance of a judgment debtor summons, and invites the debtor to court to answer, on oath, questions as to his means. (Section 55, of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act).

Pursuant to section 63, of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act, the outcome of the invitation are:

– The judgment debtor may be committed to prison for failure to settle debt, when it is on record that he refused to pay the money deliberately.

– The court may give an order attaching his property for sale.

– The court may give an order for payment in installments.

– The court may give an order for the discharge of judgment debtor from prison.

Sequestration

An application for sequestration can be initiated at a High Court (See Section 82 of the SCPA). It is similar to a writ of Fi Fa, but, in sequestration, the intention is not to sell the property or transfer title, but to appoint “commissioners” to enter the judgment debtor’s immovable property for the purpose of collecting and keeping the rent or profits accruing on the property, or to seize the property and detain until the judgment debtor clears himself of contempt. Until the court makes an order that is contrary to this, which may often times be for the debt be settled out of the funds obtained (Order 11 Rule 9 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules).

Judgment for Possession

Judgment for possession is when the judgment obtained is for possession of the property which was in dispute before the court. Under this possessory judgment, there are various modes of enforcement, just the way it is in the monetary judgment. The modes of enforcement are as follow:

Writ of Possession: Writ of possession applies to cases of recovery of premises. Recovery of possession in this regard is more than the possession between landlords and tenants. Writ of possession cannot be issued by the court, until the expiration of the day the judgment debtor is ordered to give possession of the land. but were there exists no such day, the court may order possession at the expiration of 14 days from the day judgment entered (Order IV Rule 1(1) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules).

Warrant of Possession: The process of warrant of possession applies to recovery of premises between landlords and tenants. This process is adopted by the landlord in recovery the premises from the tenant in line with the order of court.

Committal Order: Under the Committal Order, the judgment debtor may at times be committed to prison until he obeys the judgment and/or delivers possession of the property Section 72 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act).

Judgment for The Delivery of Goods

This is where the judgment obtained is for the delivery of goods from the judgment Debtor to the judgment Creditor. The modes of enforcement are the same with the mode of enforcement in the judgment of possession.

The Role Of The Courts In The Enforcement Of Judgment

The role of courts in the enforcement of judgments is critical to ensuring that legal judgments are upheld and that parties comply with court judgments, orders, rulings and decisions. The courts in Nigeria have several roles in enforcing judgments. However, before such enforcements take place the court shall have made and order, ruling or entered a judgment as the case maybe. A judgment is a final decision of the court that settles the dispute between or amongst the disputing litigants by determining the obligations and rights of either of the parties. Court judgments can be classified into in personam, in rem or qusiin rem. Judgments of courts are legally enforceable.

These are some roles a court may adopt in enforcing judgments; here are key aspects of these roles, which include but not limited to the following:

Judgment Enforcement Mechanisms: Courts provide various mechanisms for enforcing judgments, including writs of execution, garnishment, and attachments. These tools allow the winning party to collect what is owed to them.

Hearing Enforcement Actions: Courts hear motions and applications related to the enforcement of judgments. If a debtor fails to comply with a judgment, the creditor can petition the court for assistance, and the court will evaluate the evidence and circumstances.

Contempt of Court: If a party fails to comply with a court order, the court may hold them in contempt. This can lead to penalties, including fines or imprisonment, to compel compliance.

Judicial Oversight: Courts oversee the enforcement process to ensure it complies with the law. They ensure that enforcement actions are lawful and do not violate rights or due process.

Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Courts may encourage or require mediation to resolve enforcement disputes, helping parties come to an agreement without further litigation.

Appeals and Judicial Review: If a party disagrees with the enforcement actions taken by the court, they may have the right to appeal. Courts review the enforcement decisions to ensure they align with legal standards.

Equitable Relief: In some cases, courts can provide equitable relief, such as injunctions, to prevent a party from taking actions that would undermine the judgment.

Support for Creditor Rights: Courts protect the rights of creditors, ensuring that they have a fair opportunity to collect debts owed under a judgment.

Public Policy Considerations: Courts must balance individual rights with public policy, ensuring that enforcement actions do not infringe on fundamental rights while promoting the rule of law.

Issuing of summons, writs, warrants, and subpoenas, orders of attachment, freezing of assets, Injunctions and Garnishee proceedings.

The role of the courts in the enforcement of a judgment is one and the same as the role of the courts in obtaining the judgment itself. It is of no use for a judgment creditor to secure a judgment and not enforce the said judgment against the judgment debtor. This is because, none enforcement of the judgment may deny the judgment creditor the fruit or benefit of this judgment. The role of the court is the importance of the mechanisms of enforcement as enlightened.

All the procedures for the enforcement and execution of judgments, whether monetary, possessory or recover of land, all of which were succinctly explained above, are designed to assist the judgment creditor to reap the benefit of the judgment, through the powers vested in the court by the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria and other various Rules of Courts (Federal and States) to hear the applications brought and argued before it.

It should be worthy of note, that the court will not just on its own perform or carryout the enforcement and/or execution processes just because the judgment was entered in that same court or in a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Therefore, an assiduous judgment creditor and his lawyer is expected to adopt any of the procedures explained above, that suits the type of judgment secured against the judgment debtor. In adopting the processes, the judgment creditor shall file the necessary application before the court and argue same. It is only when the court is satisfied with the submission put forward by the judgment creditor to demonstrate his entitlement in the reliefs granted, that the court will go ahead to act in the line with the laws the application was brought pursuant to.

However, where a Court is called upon to enforce its judgment or the judgment of another Court, the enforcing Court cannot blindly and sheepishly follow the dictates and interpretation of the judgment creditor or his counsel and enforce the judgment based on such dictates. Rather, it is the duty of the enforcing Court to enforce the terms of the judgment as expressed by the Court in its judgment. See IGBADOO & ANOR V. KEYSTONE BANK LTD, (2021) LPELR-52677(CA).

It is trite that an order for the enforcement of a valid judgment of a Court of law must address exactly what the judgment being enforced decided. The exact terms of the judgment cannot be varied and must be enforced in exactly the same terms as was determined. See IGBOKOYI V LAWAL (2013) LPELR-27.

Therefore, it is very succinct to state that the role and duty of the court in enforcing judgment is as contained in the above judicial pronouncements, which is for the court to act strictly in accordance with the contents of the judgment.

Secondly, the courts are empowered under the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and under the various High Courts (Federal or States) Rules to entertain the applications filed by the judgment creditor as well as the judgment debtor. The court is duty bound to look at all the processes no matter how stupid the application may look. In law the failure by a Court which is under a duty to hear and determine every application before it no matter how frivolous it may be failed in its duty to render impartial and fair justice to the parties before it and such an unjust judgment reached in utter breach of the right to fair hearing of the Appellant or any party for that matter is a nullity and nothing valid or worth anything can come out from such a null judgment. See Ani V. Nna & Ors (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.440) 101 @ p. 120.

CONCLUSION

Having regards to the above paper, it is correct to state that the role of the court is to determine applications brought before it by the judgment creditor for enforcement of judgment. In hearing and determining the applications, the court must be an unbiased umpire and act in accordance with the law and not emotions. It should be home in mind that a Court of law is expected to hold the scale of justice evenly as an unbiased umpire whose jurisdiction is to evaluate the evidence presented from both sides of the legal divide. See OGBULI & ANOR v. OGBULI & ANOR (2007) LPELR-8129(CA).

In concluding one can say that in the administration of justice a court cannot really enforce a judgment until it has officially made an order, a ruling or entered a judgment of the court and if the affected party refuses to obey then enforcement proceedings can be initiated against such a party. There are also enabling powers enshrined in the various enactments that ensure and empower the role of courts to enforce their judgments. In performing its role of enforcing judgments the courts also the jurisdiction to stipulate a time within which judgment, order or ruling is to be complied with.

There is a limitation period for enforcing courts’ judgments in Nigeria and it varies depending on the type of judgment and whether it’s a local or foreign judgment. In the case of local judgments it is twenty-four [24] months and in the case of foreign judgments it is twelve [12] months. However, under the provisions of the 2004 Act, a foreign judgment can be enforced at any time within six [6] years from the date it was delivered.

Courts play a vital role in the enforcement of judgments, orders, ruling and legal decisions by providing mechanisms for collection, ensuring compliance, overseeing the process, and resolving disputes that arise during enforcement. Their involvement is essential for maintaining the rule of law, protecting the rights of parties, the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that justice is served.

In summarizing, conflicting judgments could as is always the case; most of the time complicates judicial proceedings, including garnishee actions, requiring careful resolution through appeals and the application of legal doctrines. The Attorney-General plays a crucial role in representing the state’s interests, by providing legal advice, intervening when necessary, and ensuring that garnishee proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. This role is essential in maintaining the rule of law, equity, the integrity of the judicial system and protecting public interest.

(Concluded).

Thought for the week

“The power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender – Sandra Day O’Connor

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

In Nigeria, the courts under the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Section 6, Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) 1999), has the power to hear and enter judgment in favour of a party to the matter, who has succeeded in proving his case. For any judgment delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction to become useful, it must be enforced, otherwise, the judgment cannot be used by the party to discharge the reliefs sought in the judgment by the court. There is no doubt, that the age long law is that a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset or sit aside on appeal. See NCC v. MOTOPHONE LTD & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47401 (SC). This article shall focus on the role of the Courts in Nigeria, in the enforcement or execution of judgments delivered by the courts in Nigeria.

Therefore, in reviewing the role of the courts in the enforcement of judgement in Nigeria, we shall also review what courts and enforcement really mean, the types of judgments that is enforceable under Nigeria jurisprudence, the challenges encountered by courts in the enforcement of judgments, if any, and when a judgment is said to be fully and legally enforced or executed by a party to the judgment, through the courts.

What Is A Court?

A Court simply put is a forum, place or building where persons or corporate bodies litigants who have a dispute come to state facts and adduce evidence to prove their individual cases or allegations at trials. A court is constituted and established often by government as an adjudicating body or institution, with authority to decide legal disputes between and amongst disputants and running and managing the processes of justice in criminal and civil courts and adhering to the rule of law, equity and natural justice. The presiding person or groups of persons of these courts are usually called Magistrates, Judges, Justices and or Chairmen of Tribunals, which also serve as special courts.

There are various types of courts established under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [as Amended] 2011, [CFRN], from the Supreme Court of Nigeria (being the highest court of record) to customary courts.

Functions of Courts

The courts function as temples of justice, equity and natural law. The courts in Nigeria have many functions, including but not limited to the following:

1. Interpreting the law: The Courts interprets the Constitution and other laws, statutes and case law.

2. Protecting rights: The courts define citizens’ rights and protect vulnerable groups.

3. Resolving disputes: The courts settle disputes between parties through the application of rules and procedures.

4. Adjudicating: The courts determine guilt and administer punishment to those who have breached the law.

5. Guarding the Constitution: The courts are the guardians of the Constitution other laws, statutes and case law and upholds the rule of law.

6. Ensuring access to justice: The courts ensure that judicial services are accessible to everyone.

7. Upholding the rule of law: The courts protect and preserve the rule of law and ensures that laws are in accordance with the constitution and other higher laws.

8. Respecting human rights: The courts respect human rights and follows principles of fairness, equality, impartiality, legality and natural justice.

9. Delivering effective remedies: The courts deliver effective remedies and exercise their remit with the highest level of integrity.

10. Functions imposed by Statute Law: The courts exercises the role imposed by statutes, laws and the inherent powers of the courts.

What Is Judgment?

The word “judgement” can be termed as a pronouncement or a decision reached by a court over a matter that is pending before it. A person who judgment is entered in his favour is called the judgment creditor. The person whom a judgment is entered against is called the judgment debtor. It will suffice to say that judgment must be entered in favour of one party and not both the Claimant and Defendant. The Supreme Court defined the word ‘judgment’ in SARAKI & ANR. V. KOTOYE (1992) LPELR – 3016 (SC) as:

“A binding, authentic, official judicial determination of the Court in respect of the claims and in an action before it.”

Furthermore, UMANAH v. ATTAH & ORS, (2006) LPELR-3356(SC), Per NIKI TOBI, JSC, in defining what a judgment of court is, held that:

“The law is elementary that a minority judgment, as the name implies, is not the judgment of the court. The judgment of the court is the majority judgment.”

There are generally two types of judgments, to wit: Declaratory judgments and Executory judgments.

Declaratory judgments

A declaratory judgment is a court ruling that defines or clarifies the rights of the parties involved in a legal dispute. It’s a binding decision that can be used to resolve disputes, but it doesn’t require the court to order any action to be taken merely proclaims, or declares the existence of a legal relationship and does not contain any order which may be enforced against the judgment debtor. Furthermore, it is correct to state that a declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before the court.

It is a settled law that, whilst an executory judgment is capable of immediate execution, a declaratory judgment gives no such right. It merely declares the rights of the parties. The rights which it confers on the plaintiff can only become enforceable if another and subsequent judgment, albeit relying on the rights it declared, so decrees. Such a subsequent judgment conferring the power of execution is executor (See David Ogunlade v. Ezekiel Adeleye (1992) LPELR – 23040 (SC)). In such an instance, the date of enforceability will be the date of the subsequent (executory) judgment and not the earlier judgment, which is merely declaratory.

Executory Judgments

An executory judgment declares the respective rights of the parties and then proceeds to order the judgment debtor to act in a particular way, hence, it is enforceable. An executory judgment is a court order that is enforceable immediately after it is pronounced. It is also known as an enforceable judgment.

According to D.I. Efevwerhan¸ “every successful litigant desire to enjoy the fruit of his success, which is judgment.” Execution includes the process of carrying into effect the directions in a decree or judgment.

At this point, it may seem confusing for persons who are not well versed in law. However, this shall now digress to how a successful litigant can enforce a judgment against an unwilling judgment debtor.

Enforcement Of Judgment

Enforcement or execution of judgments can be defined as is defined as: “the process whereby a judgment or order of Court is enforced or given effect to according to law.”(See TUKUR v. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 592) AT 608). The execution of a judgment thus encompasses the enforcement of the various writs provided under the laws for giving effect to a judgment and the most comprehensive laws governing enforcement of judgment are the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, LFN 2004 and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. (Ibid).

It is one thing to argue your case before a court successfully and get judgment. It is another thing for the judgment creditor to objectify the fruits of his/her judgment. Often times, aside the psychological gratification of the declaration of’ judgment in winning party’s favour, the winning party ends up with a barren trophy, and the tangible realization of the fruits of the victory becomes a mirage. It is often times resulted from either ignorance or from the tiredness of protracted trial.

Before we progress into enforcement of judgment, it is good we know the law applicable in the enforcement of judgement of Nigeria. Some of these laws are:

a. Judgment Enforcement Rules

b. The Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act

c. The 1999 Constitution

d. Foreign Judgments [Enforcement Reciprocal] Act 2004

e. Administration Criminal Justice Act 2015.

f. The Civil Procedure Rules (Federal or States) of the several courts.

There are different modes of enforcing executory Judgments, as enforcement is according to subject matter. Under enforcement of judgment, the modalities for enforcing monetary judgment are different from the modes of enforcing possessory judgments.

A) Money Judgments

Under monetary judgments, the judgment debtor is expected to pay the judgment creditor the awarded sum. This sum may be damages awarded or a debt the Judgment Debtor owed the Judgment Creditor, which may sometimes constitute the subject matter of the suit.
Modalities for Enforcement of Monetary judgments:

a. Writ of Fieri Facias

This is process is adopted by a judgment creditor in a court to levy execution against the property of the judgment debtor; whether movable or immovable. It should be noted that the property must be within the within the jurisdiction of the court where the judgment was delivered. Under the Enforcement of Judgment, it can only be issued at the expiration of three (3) days from the date of delivery of judgment (see Order IV Rule 1(2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules).

The initial step is on the movable property of judgment debtor. However, it must be limited to the property that may be seized and exempts wearing apparel, bedding and tools and implements of the judgment debtor’s trade to the value of N10, which is unarguably inconsequential because of the devaluation of the naira (see Section 25 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act).

Another point to note is that seized property cannot be sold until the expiration of 5 clear days from the date of seizure, unless the goods are of a perishable nature or the judgment debtor requests that they be sold in writing. Where the seized and sold property of the judgment debtor cannot settle the debt, his immovable property may be attached but, with the leave of the High Court first. However, before the said leave can be obtained from a court by the judgment creditor, he must first show sufficient proof from the funds generated by the movable property did not settle the debt and that the property he is seeking to attach actually belongs to the judgment debtor.

To be continued

Thought for the week

The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. (Brett Kavanaugh).

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last episode, we looked at the requirements of citizenship under the law, taking our cue from Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Chapter III) of the Constitution which recognizes different categories of Nigerian citizenship, namely by birth, naturalisation and registration and their incidents. Today, we shall consider whether Olisa Agbakoba’s case was rightly decided and also whether a passport issued to a citizen by birth can be withdrawn or forfeited. After which we shall take a cursory look at some laws- international and Nigerian laws guiding passport seizure, retention, revocation and deprivation, consider the human and legal implications as well as provide some remedies. Read on please.

Was Agbakoba’s Case Correctly Decided?

This is the million naira question. It can be seen that the apex court in the case affirmed the prerogative of the Minister of Internal Affairs under Section 5 of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to suspend, withhold or revoke the passport of a Nigeria on the ground, inter alia, of national interest. I believe that, to the extent that the Supreme Court did not consider whether that provision was a valid derogation from the fundamental right to freedom of movement within parameters of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Constitution, that decision was given somewhat per incuriam.

I submit that, that right (and its concomitant right to a passport) cannot be derogated from merely on the vague, blanket ground of ‘public interest’ (as provided under Section 5 of the Act) but rather on any one or more (if not all) the grounds specifically set out in the Constitution i.e., in the interest of defence, public or defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting of rights and freedom of other persons. While it can be argued that those grounds are all in the public interest. I believe their specification under the Constitution is to prevent abuse and to check arbitrariness.

I believe that this view would be consistent with the contra-profremtum rule of statutory interpretation which states that any statute which seeks to deprive a person of his proprietary rights must be construed strictly against the law-maker and sympathetically in favour of the citizen whose right is at stake. Such laws should be interpreted narrowly and if their provisions are not strictly observed in any given case, they will be struck down. See FCDA V SULEI (1994)3 NWLR pt. 332 pg 257 per Ogundare, JSC, PROVOST, LACOED V EDUN (2004) LPELR- 2929 (SC) Per Tobi, JSC and THE ADMINISTRATORS & EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA V EKE-SPIFF (2009) LPELR-3152 (SC) PER Aderemi, JSC, at pg 41E-42B.

Can A Passport Issued To A Citizen By Birth Be Withdrawn Or Forfeited?

I believe this question is the most fundamental of all and is at the heart of the debate which is subject of this paper. This is because, if a person’s citizenship by birth can neither be forfeited nor taken away from him or by executive fiat, he or she ought not to be denied or deprived of the symbol of that status by the same or any other means except, of course, by personal choice (i.e., renunciation). In other words, I believe that the question is not so much about the invalidity of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act vis-a vis those of Sections 41 and 45 of the Constitution, (although this is crucial) but rather, of the unconstitutionality of any law which purports to empower any person whatsoever (including the president) to withhold, revoke or withdraw the passport of a citizen of Nigeria by birth on ANY GROUND other than those spelt out in section 45 of the Constitution.

The reason is simple: as stated earlier, if the President cannot deprive a citizen by Birth of his or her citizenship (as he can do in respect of citizens by naturalisation or registration under SECTION 30(1) AND (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION), he should not possess the power to withdraw or withhold the pre-eminent symbol of that status: his passport. If the President, as the CEO of the country (under Section 130 (3) of the Constitution) cannot do that, I believe that neither should any of his subordinates or even appointees (such as the Minister of Internal Affairs) in the manner in which Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act stipulates.
Summary

Nigerian Law

1. Constitutional Rights: The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement (Section 41) and the right to a passport (Section 42).
2. Passport Act: The Passport Act (1961) regulates passport issuance, revocation, and seizure.
3. Immigration Act: The Immigration Act (2015) empowers the Nigeria Immigration Service to seize and revoke passports.

International Law

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 13(2) guarantees the right to leave and return to one’s country.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 12(2) protects the right to freedom of movement.
3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Article 12(1) guarantees the right to freedom of movement.

Human Rights Implications

1. Right to Freedom of Movement: Passport seizures, retention, or revocation can restrict movement, violating this right.
2. Right to Nationality: Deprivation of a passport can lead to statelessness, violating the right to nationality.
3. Right to Family Life: Passport restrictions can separate families, violating the right to family life.
4. Right to Education and Work: Passport restrictions can limit access to education and employment opportunities.

Legal Implications

1. Administrative Justice: Passport seizures or revocation must follow due process, as outlined in the Nigerian Constitution.
2. Judicial Review: Affected individuals can seek judicial review of passport-related decisions.
3. International Obligations: Nigeria must uphold international human rights obligations, including those related to passport rights.

Remedies

1. Judicial Review: Challenge passport seizures or revocation in court.
2. Administrative Appeals: Appeal to relevant authorities, such as the Nigeria Immigration Service.
3. Human Rights Commission: File complaints with the National Human Rights Commission.
4. International Mechanisms: Petition international human rights bodies, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Conclusion

A passport is a symbol of one’s citizenship. It is the pre-eminent marker which identifies its holder as a citizen of a particular country. While you can be a citizen without necessarily holding a passport, you cannot possess a passport unless you are citizen of a country: they are two sides of the same coin.

Our Constitution has covered the field of citizenship, vide Chapter III, Sections 25 to 32 thereof which recognises three categories of citizens by birth, by naturalisation and by registration. While the last two can be taken away by the President under the Constitution, the former cannot.

The Constitution empowers the President (vide Section 32) to make regulations prescribing matters required or necessary for effectuating or carrying out the provisions of that chapter, subject only to one condition: that any such regulation should be laid before the National Assembly. Crucially, there is no role for a Minister or any other person under the Constitution in this regard in terms of conferring or depriving a person of citizenship of Nigeria.
In other words, the Constitution has covered the field. Accordingly, to the extent that the National Assembly purports to empower the Minister of Internal Affairs to withdraw or cancel any passport issued to any person on the ground, inter alia, of public interest (vide Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act), that provision is not only otiose, it is ultra vires, invalid, null and void because it is inconsistent with the aforesaid constitutional provisions which specifically empower only the President to deprive a person of his citizenship. The mere fact that those clauses refer to ‘citizenship’ and not ‘passport’ is irrelevant; as previously submitted, the latter is but evidence of the former: you can’t have the latter without the former.

The power conferred on the Minister of Internal Affairs to revoke or withdraw passports under Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, should, ideally, be conferred on the President. This would be consistent with the spirit and letters of Chapter III of the Constitution which clearly manifests an intention by the framers of the Constitution to confer on the President absolute control of the citizenship ecosystem – including, of course, passports. As the apex court famously held in OSADEBAY V. ATTN-GEN OF BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR Pt. 169 pg. 525, S.C, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, “it cannot be presumed that the framers of the Constitution intended to confer a right with one hand and to take it away with the other”

The Constitution should be construed as a whole and its makers cannot possibly intend to set the President up against his own appointee. The Minister is not a bean-stalk planted by Jack: he cannot outgrow himself. Under the Constitution, only the President can deprive a person of his or her citizenship and then only in two instances: citizenship by naturalisation and citizenship by registration. Not by birth. If otherwise, it would mean that the President’s appointee or agent- the Minister is more powerful than the President, which would not be a travesty, it would be a constitutional aberration.

Once the Constitution has covered a legislative field, no other person, body or authority is permitted to legislate in respect of same subject matter: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2002)6 NWLR PT.763 Pg 264 at 39q per Kutigi and Uwais, JSC and CJN. (The end).

Thought for the week

“As a global community, we face a choice. Do we want migration to be a source of prosperity and international solidarity, or a byword for inhumanity and social friction” (Antonio Guterres).