Group Effects on B1608+656

Is provided for in sections 249-257 of the 1999 Constitution. The court consists of a Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and such number of judges as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. The appointment of a person to the office of the chief judge of the federal high court shall be by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial Council subject to the confirmation of the senate while the appointment of a judge of the Federal High Court shall be made by the president on the recommendations of the National Judicial Council.

The jurisdiction of the Federal high courts has been an issue of controversy in times past in relations tom the high court of a State. However, section 251 contains issues over which the Federal high court has jurisdiction and they include: matters of CAMA, taxation of companies, copy right, patent, trademarks, banking matters, bankruptcy and insolvency, aviation and safety of aircraft, arms, ammunition and explosives, drugs and poisons etc.

Lastly is the state high court which used to enjoy a wide jurisdiction but now only has jurisdiction over matters not within the purview of section 51

135

of the1999 constitution. The appointment of the Chief Judge of a state high court shall be made by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to the confirmation by the House of Assembly.

In conclusion, it should be noted that magistrate courts in the South and Area courts in the North though not provided for by the constitution are creations of the State laws.

3.3 OUSTER OF COURT JURISDICTION

Ouster of court Jurisdiction is usually carried out through inserting ouster clauses in the various enactments. This is prominent during military regimes as it negates democratic principles as such is rare during civilian or democratic government.

Ouster clauses were common feature of Decrees of Buhari/Idiagbon regime, Ibrahim Babangida and the Abacha regimes. The Ouster clauses not only limited the operation of Fundamental Rights provisions contained in the constitutions but also barred judicial review of Decree No 2 of 1984 provides:

Nigeria, 1979 is hereby suspended for the purpose of this Decree and any question whether any provision thereof has been or is being or would be contravened by anything done or proposed to be done in pursuance of this Decree shall not be inquired into any court of law.

Section 4(1) of the same Decree also provides:

No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Decree.

Decree No. 13 of 1984- The Federal Military Government (Supremacy and enforcement of Powers) Decree- contains an omnibus ouster clause, to wit,

“No civil proceeding shall lie or be instituted in any court for or on account of any matter or thing done or purported to be done under or pursuant to any Decree or Edict and if any such proceedings are instituted before, on or after the commencement of this Decree the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and made void”.

According to Professor B.O. Nwabueze, the aim of such provisions is ‘to ensure that by the comprehensiveness of the exclusionary provisions, the executive or administrative acts of the Military Government under these decrees were impenetrably shielded from judicial review , and that all possible loopholes for the court’s intervention were effectively plugged.’

Invariably, the military leaders turned themselves into law makers thus making laws without following the due process of law. Trials were conducted by

136

Military Tribunals and retroactive legislation in criminal matters. In addition, virtually all the rights contained in the constitution were violated by successive Nigerian Government. The intendment is to ouster the jurisdiction of the courts such that their acts cannot be challenged in any way.

The clauses cannot be found in a democratic government because there are laid down procedure for enacting laws and such must be followed for laws made to be valid in the true sense of it.

4.0 CONCLUSION

By the provisions of section 6 of 1999 constitution, it is the court that is saddled with judicial powers any other judicial act by any other institution or group is an aberration of this provision and is unconstitutional and such cannot be accommodated in a democratic state because it negates the principles of separation of powers upon which a democratic state is founded..

5.0 SUMMARY

Ouster clauses are common features of a military government and its aim is to reduce the powers of the court by limiting matters upon which they have jurisdiction and by so doing, the court cannot interfere in such matters since they have no power to hear same.

6.0 TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Recently the Federal government issued that the Lagos State Government due to insubordination to the Federal Government should not be paid its allocation, the State Government is aggrieved and wants to challenge this action, advise it on which court has jurisdiction.

2. Discuss: Are ouster clauses operational in a civilian government?

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

1. Osita Nnanami Ogbu (1999) Human Rights Law and Practice in Nigeria: an introduction.

2. Kayodde Eso (2008) Rights and Education

3. S.E. Deko (2002) Fundamental Issues in Nigerian Constitutional Law 4. Joseph Ikogho (1999) Nigerian Constitution with Topic Finder

5. Ese Malemi (2006) The Nigerian Constitutional Law

137

6. Bob Osamor (2008) Fundamentals of Criminal Procedure in Nigeria 7. Olakanmi & Co (2007) Hand Book on Human Rights.

138