Why Human Rights Cases Are Filed in the Federal High Court

Why Human Rights Cases Are Filed in the Federal High Court: A Deep Dive into Jurisdiction, Access to Justice, and the Pursuit of Fundamental Rights in Nigeria

Introduction: The Unwavering Pursuit of Justice

In any society aspiring to democratic ideals and the rule of law, the protection and enforcement of human rights stand as non-negotiable pillars. These rights, inherent to every individual by virtue of their humanity, are the bedrock upon which a just and equitable society is built. From the fundamental right to life and dignity of the person to the freedoms of expression, association, and fair hearing, their safeguarding is paramount. However, the mere enunciation of these rights in legal texts is insufficient; robust judicial mechanisms are essential to ensure their practical realization and to provide redress when they are violated.

In Nigeria, a nation with a rich constitutional history and a vibrant legal landscape, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding these sacred rights. While various courts possess powers to address grievances, the Federal High Court has emerged as a significant and often preferred ask for the commencement of human rights litigation.

This blog post embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the reasons behind this trend, dissecting the intricate web of constitutional provisions, procedural rules, strategic advantages, and practical considerations that compel individuals and organizations to seek justice for human rights infringements within the hallowed halls of the Federal High Court. We will delve into its jurisdictional mandate, analyze its concurrent powers with State High Courts, and examine the unique factors that make it a compelling choice for those seeking to enforce their fundamental rights in Nigeria.

Section 1: Understanding the Foundation – The Nigerian Legal Framework for Human Rights

The journey to understanding why human rights cases land in the Federal High Court begins with a firm grasp of Nigeria’s foundational legal framework for human rights. This framework is robust, rooted deeply in the nation’s supreme law, and augmented by international obligations.

1.1 Constitutional Guarantees: Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution

At the apex of Nigeria’s human rights architecture lies Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This chapter, titled “Fundamental Rights,” is a charter of liberties, meticulously enumerating the inalienable rights of every Nigerian citizen and, in many instances, all persons within its borders, including foreigners. Key rights enshrined therein include:

• Right to Life (Section 33): Safeguarding against arbitrary deprivation of life.
• Right to Dignity of Human Person (Section 34): Prohibiting torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and forced labor.
• Right to Personal Liberty (Section 35): Protecting against unlawful arrest and detention.
• Right to Fair Hearing (Section 36): Guaranteeing due process in legal proceedings.
• Right to Private and Family Life (Section 37): Ensuring the sanctity of personal privacy.
• Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Section 38): Upholding religious and intellectual autonomy.
• Right to Freedom of Expression and the Press (Section 39): Protecting the freedom to hold opinions and disseminate information.
• Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association (Section 40): Allowing individuals to gather and form groups for various purposes.
• Right to Freedom of Movement (Section 41): Granting citizens the right to move freely throughout Nigeria and reside anywhere.
• Right to Freedom from Discrimination (Section 42): Prohibiting discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of origin, sex, religion, or political opinion.
• Right to Acquire and Own Immovable Property (Section 43): Securing property rights.

A critical aspect of these constitutional guarantees is their justiciability. This means that these rights are not mere declarations but are legally enforceable in a court of law. When any of these rights are violated or are threatened with violation, an aggrieved individual has the right to seek legal redress.

1.2 International Instruments and Domestic Application

Beyond the domestic constitutional provisions, Nigeria is a signatory to numerous international and regional human rights treaties. A prime example is the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Once such international instruments are ratified and domesticated into Nigerian law (typically through an Act of the National Assembly), they acquire the force of law and become enforceable by Nigerian courts. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules specifically acknowledge the enforceability of rights enshrined in the African Charter. This dual protection – from both domestic and international instruments – significantly strengthens the human rights landscape in Nigeria.

1.3 The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (FREPR) 2009: The Procedural Pathway

Recognizing the need for a simplified and expedited process for human rights enforcement, Section 46(3) of the 1999 Constitution empowers the Chief Justice of Nigeria to make rules for the practice and procedure of the High Courts for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights. Pursuant to this, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 (which replaced the 1979 Rules) were promulgated.

The FREPR 2009 is a landmark legal instrument designed to:

• Simplify and Expedite: The rules streamline the procedural requirements for initiating human rights cases, aiming to ensure quick dispensation of justice. They permit applications to be brought by originating motion, simplifying the process compared to a full-blown civil suit.
• Proactively Pursue Enhanced Access to Justice: The Preamble to the FREPR explicitly states its objective to enhance access to justice for all classes of litigants, “especially the poor, the illiterate, the uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the unrepresented.” This reflects a conscious effort to make human rights enforcement accessible to the most vulnerable in society.
• Prioritize Human Rights Cases: The Rules mandate that human rights suits be given priority, especially when they involve the liberty of an applicant or any person, treating such cases as emergencies.
• Broaden Locus Standi: While the traditional rules of locus standi (legal standing to sue) can sometimes be restrictive, the FREPR aims to adopt a more liberal approach in human rights cases, allowing broader categories of persons or groups to bring actions in the public interest or on behalf of others, where appropriate.

The existence of the FREPR is a crucial enabler, providing the procedural machinery through which the constitutional and international guarantees of human rights can be effectively enforced in Nigerian courts, including the Federal High Court.

Section 2: The Federal High Court: A Jurisdiction of Choice

Having established the foundational legal framework, we now turn to the specific role of the Federal High Court in human rights litigation. While it shares some powers, its unique constitutional mandate and practical implications often make it a preferred ask.

2.1 Establishing Jurisdiction: The Constitutional Mandate (Section 251)

The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is primarily outlined in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution. This section enumerates a wide array of civil causes and matters over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. These include:

• Revenue of the Government of the Federation.
• Taxation of companies.
• Customs and excise duties.
• Banking and other financial institutions (with a proviso for individual customer disputes).
• Companies and Allied Matters Act.
• Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks, and merchandise marks.
• Admiralty jurisdiction.
• Diplomatic, consular, and trade representation.
• Citizenship, naturalization, and aliens; deportation, extradition, immigration, passports, and visas.
• Bankruptcy and insolvency.¹
• Aviation and safety of aircraft.²
• Arms, ammunition, and explosives.³
• Drugs and poisons.⁴
• Mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys, and natural gas).⁵
• Weights and measures.⁶
• The administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.⁷
• Subject to the provisi⁸ons of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
• Any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.

The last three bullet points – particularly (p), (q), and (r) – are profoundly significant in the context of human rights. Many human rights violations involve actions or inactions of federal government agencies (e.g., the Police, Department of State Services (DSS), Nigerian Army, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Nigeria Customs Service, etc.) or federal government officials. When the alleged human rights infringement arises directly from the administration, management, control, or an executive/administrative action/decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, the Federal High Court clearly possesses jurisdiction under Section 251.

2.2 Concurrent Jurisdiction with State High Courts: A Closer Look

It is imperative to address the concept of concurrent jurisdiction. Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution unequivocally states: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.” Nigerian jurisprudence, through various court decisions, has consistently interpreted “a High Court in that State” to include both the State High Court and the Federal High Court located within that State.

Therefore, on the face of it, both State High Courts and the Federal High Court have jurisdiction to entertain fundamental rights enforcement applications. This raises a crucial question: If State High Courts also have jurisdiction, why is the Federal High Court frequently chosen?

The answer lies in the nexus between the human rights violation and the specific jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by Section 251. While the State High Court has general jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights regardless of the nature of the alleged perpetrator or the underlying subject matter, the Federal High Court’s human rights jurisdiction is largely ancillary or incidental to its exclusive jurisdiction under Section 251.

Put simply, if the human rights violation stems from or is intrinsically linked to a matter over which the Federal High Court already has exclusive jurisdiction (e.g., an arbitrary arrest by the EFCC, a violation of expression arising from a federal enactment on copyright, or a land dispute involving a federal government agency), then the Federal High Court is the appropriate ask.

If the human rights violation arises from a matter outside the scope of Section 251 (e.g., a simple assault by a private citizen, a contractual dispute, or a land matter between private individuals not involving a federal agency), then the State High Court would typically be the more appropriate, or even the exclusive, ask for such an enforcement action.

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have repeatedly clarified this jurisdictional interplay. They have held that while the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction in human rights enforcement, that jurisdiction is limited to fundamental rights issues that arise from or are incidental to matters over which the Federal High Court has original exclusive jurisdiction under Section 251. Similarly, a State High Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain human rights matters if the substantive issue of the complaint falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, even if framed as a human rights violation. This distinction is critical to avoiding a “blind spot” in understanding the FHC’s role.

2.3 The Federal High Court’s Specialized Nature and Expertise

The Federal High Court was established primarily to alleviate the burden on State High Courts and to specialize in matters of federal law. This specialization has, over time, led to a concentration of expertise among its judges and legal practitioners in areas such as constitutional law, administrative law, intellectual property, banking, and maritime law.

Given that many human rights cases, particularly those involving federal government actions or complex constitutional interpretations, often intersect with these specialized areas, the Federal High Court is perceived to possess a greater depth of knowledge and experience in handling such nuanced legal challenges. This institutional expertise can be a significant draw for litigants seeking robust and informed adjudication of their human rights claims.

Section 3: Strategic Advantages and Practical Considerations for Filing in the Federal High Court

Beyond the strictly jurisdictional arguments, several strategic and practical considerations often sway litigants towards the Federal High Court when seeking to enforce fundamental rights.

3.1 Perceived Efficiency and Expedited Procedures (FREPR):

The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (FREPR) 2009 were specifically crafted to ensure the swift and efficient dispensation of justice in human rights cases. The rules emphasize urgency, discourage frivolous adjournments, and allow for applications to be brought by originating motion, which is a less cumbersome and faster procedure than initiating a full civil suit via writ of summons.

While court backlogs can affect any court, many practitioners perceive the Federal High Court, particularly in certain divisions, as being more proactive in adhering to the spirit of the FREPR, leading to potentially faster resolution of human rights matters, especially those involving personal liberty. The focus on affidavit evidence in FREPR applications can also expedite proceedings, though complex cases may still require oral testimony.

3.2 Nationwide Reach and Uniformity of Decisions:

The Federal High Court has judicial divisions in almost all the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. This nationwide presence offers a distinct advantage, particularly for human rights cases that might have implications across state lines or involve federal agencies operating throughout the country. Litigants benefit from a potentially more uniform interpretation and application of federal human rights laws and international instruments. This consistency, in theory, can lead to greater predictability in legal outcomes and strengthen legal certainty across Nigeria, as decisions from one division of the Federal High Court can influence similar cases in other divisions and appellate courts.

3.3 Handling Cases Against Federal Government Agencies and Officials:

This is arguably one of the most compelling reasons why human rights cases are filed in the Federal High Court. As previously discussed, Section 251(1)(p), (q), and (r) of the Constitution explicitly grants the Federal High Court jurisdiction over matters involving the administration, management, control, executive, or administrative actions of the Federal Government or its agencies.

Therefore, when a human right violation is perpetrated by federal law enforcement agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the Department of State Services (DSS), the Nigerian Army, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), or by any federal government official acting in their official capacity, the Federal High Court is the natural and often mandatory ask.

Examples of such cases commonly filed in the FHC include:

• Cases of unlawful arrest and detention by federal security agencies.
• Violations of the right to dignity of the person by federal agents, including torture or inhumane treatment.
• Infringements of freedom of expression or the press by federal bodies, such as censorship or harassment of journalists.
• Illegal seizure of property by federal agencies in the course of their duties.
• Violations of fair hearing rights in administrative processes conducted by federal government bodies.

Filing in the Federal High Court in such instances ensures that the litigant is in the court with the clear constitutional mandate to review the actions of federal government entities, thereby avoiding potential jurisdictional challenges and delays that could arise if the case were filed in a State High Court without the requisite nexus to State-specific jurisdiction.

3.4 Interplay with Other Federal Matters:

Human rights issues are not always isolated; they can arise as an offshoot of other legal matters. For instance:

• A business owner’s freedom of movement might be arbitrarily restricted due to a dispute over federal taxes or customs duties.
• A person’s right to property might be violated in the course of an intellectual property enforcement action initiated by a federal agency.
• An employee’s right to personal liberty could be infringed in connection with an investigation by a federal agency into corporate malfeasance.

In such complex scenarios where the human rights violation is inextricably linked to a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251, consolidating both the substantive federal matter and the human rights claim in the Federal High Court offers procedural efficiency and prevents multiplicity of actions in different courts. This integrated approach ensures that all facets of a grievance are addressed within a single judicial ask.

3.5 Public Perception and Profile of the Court:

While subjective, there can be a public perception regarding the stature and independence of different courts. The Federal High Court, dealing as it does with matters of national significance and often high-profile cases involving federal government interests, may sometimes be perceived by the public and legal practitioners as having a higher profile or being more independent in handling sensitive human rights cases, particularly those against powerful state actors. This perception, whether entirely accurate in every instance, can influence the choice of ask for litigants seeking maximum visibility and judicial scrutiny of human rights abuses.

Section 4: Challenges and Criticisms

No legal system is without its imperfections, and the Federal High Court, despite its strengths in human rights adjudication, is not exempt from challenges and criticisms. Acknowledging these “blind spots” provides a more balanced perspective:

• Potential for Delays: While the FREPR aims for expedited hearings, practical realities like heavy caseloads, judicial vacancies, and occasional administrative bottlenecks can still lead to delays in the Federal High Court, just as in other courts. The ideal of swift justice is not always perfectly realized.
• Consistency in Judicial Interpretations: While the nationwide reach aims for uniformity, there can still be variations in the interpretation and application of human rights principles across different divisions and individual judges of the Federal High Court. This highlights the need for robust appellate review to ensure consistency.
• Resource Constraints: Like many public institutions in Nigeria, the Federal High Court can face challenges related to adequate funding, modern infrastructure, and sufficient support staff, which can impact its overall efficiency and capacity to handle the growing volume of human rights cases.
• Jurisdictional Nuances and Technicalities: Despite the spirit of the FREPR encouraging liberal interpretation, strict adherence to jurisdictional boundaries (especially the Section 251 nexus) can sometimes lead to cases being struck out on technicalities, denying substantive justice to an applicant who may have erroneously filed in the “wrong” court. This underscores the importance of proper legal advice before filing.

Conclusion: Upholding the Pillars of Justice

In conclusion, the Federal High Court stands as a critically important pillar in Nigeria’s human rights protection architecture. Its robust jurisdiction, particularly in matters involving federal government agencies and actions, coupled with the streamlined procedures of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, makes it a powerful and often preferred ask for individuals and groups seeking to enforce their fundamental rights.

The strategic advantages of filing in the Federal High Court – including its perceived efficiency, nationwide consistency, and specialized expertise in federal matters – provide compelling reasons for its frequent selection by litigants. While challenges and criticisms exist, the Court’s unwavering commitment to upholding the constitutional guarantees of human rights remains central to its mandate.

As Nigeria continues its democratic journey, the role of the Federal High Court in safeguarding fundamental freedoms will undoubtedly remain pivotal. Its continued vigilance, coupled with ongoing efforts to enhance access to justice and address systemic challenges, is essential to ensure that human rights are not merely theoretical pronouncements but living realities for all citizens, fostering a society founded on justice, dignity, and the rule of law.