Disputes between States and the Federation: Examining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Part 5)

Introduction 

In the last four weeks, we discussed this all important issue of disputes that arise now and again between States and the Federation, and how to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We discussed the Constitution,  the laws and precedent cases. We examined some conflicting decisions. We also looked into the question of whether a private individual has locus standi to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; and instances when the said jurisdiction cannot be invoked at all. We clearly saw a possible shift of the Apex Court in AG of Ondo State v AG of the Federation & 19 Ors (1983) 2 SCNL 269. Today, we shall conclude this treatise with what possible interests and benefits that may accrue, in such actions between States and the Federation. In concluding, as I always do in my several outings, I will advance some recommendations which can help re-engineer the system.   

The Nature of Interest and Benefits Accruing from an Action between States and the Federation

To invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any action by a State Government, the interest and/or benefit must accrue to the State as a corporate entity. For instance, where the benefit accrues to an individual such as the Governor of the State in his personal capacity, the Supreme Court will not entertain the action. In Plateau State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346, some of the reliefs sought were for the personal benefit of the Governor, Deputy Governor and State Commissioners, being monetary compensation for the declaration of a state of emergency in Plateau State by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court held that, it had no original jurisdiction in respect of claims and reliefs for individual persons.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court is the Apex Court of the land, established to only entertain critical issues that deal with the major government arms in the country. The reason for this, is not far-fetched. The Apex Court is one of law, equity and public policy. It oxygenates the life of a nation, using the law, and ensuring that the law is not static and the Nation evolves. This is to avoid the kind of situation envisioned by Lord Denning in Parker v Parker (1953), where he stated famously: “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 will be bad for both”. 

Recommendations

The following humble recommendations are made, to signpost the way forward.

1. Locus Standi 

The National Assembly, States Houses of Assembly and the President, have direct access to the Supreme Court at first instance. However, in line with the liberalism displayed by the court in Attorney-General of Rivers State v Attorney-General Akwa Ibom State (Supra), the Apex Court is encouraged to continue to avail individuals of access, where they are suing through the Attorney-General. This would open the way for the Apex Court of the land to weigh into some very sensitive matters, that had in times past been struck out for want of jurisdiction. It is by no means a tacit expansion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but a leeway to cure some emerging problems in an ever dynamic world.

2. Are Acts of Government Agencies Covered by States for the Purpose of Invoking the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction?

The law is settled that a suit against an agency of the government, does not qualify to ground the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This is plausible, in light of some confusion that trails this principle in the jurisdiction of the Court. Recently, the case of Attorney-General of Kaduna State v Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (2023) LPELR-59936(SC), raised this poser amongst legal practitioners and even laymen. The contention was whether the States could approach the Supreme Court, over an issue emanating from the administrative flaws of the Central Bank of Nigeria – an Agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria – not the Federation, by any dint of appreciation. The Supreme Court held that it was purely a matter between States and the Federation, in that the States in their Originating Summons, were praying the Supreme Court to undo what the Federation had done which affects the rights of citizens in their States. While it is laudable that the Supreme Court took on this progressive path on such a very sensitive issue at the time of a possible uprising in Nigeria engendered by the Naira swap policy, the Supreme Court is humbly urged to go further, and make the Position of the Law clearer and more explicit in subsequent decisions as regards this thorny issue. 

3. Finally, the Supreme Court is a court of law and also of public policy. It is constitutionally bound to do justice, according to law. The nature of cases that come before the Apex Court at first instance, obviously shows the sensitivity and public nature of such suits, and the task thus, brought to bear on the Apex Court to deal with such matters in the overall interest of the existence and continuation of our statehood. While our courts must continue to be the last resort and hope of the common man and woman, the issue of jurisdiction should always be approached most liberally in the spirit of nationhood, so as to allow wholesome ventilation of grievances. Stifling of grievances without allowing room for ventilation under restrictive locus standi rules, may have the unsalutary effect of driving people underground to take the laws into their hands. God forbid. (The End)

THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever”. (William Howard Taft)

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