What Is Justiciability in Nigerian Constitutional Law?

Nigerian constitutional law, much like constitutional law in other jurisdictions, grapples with a fundamental concept known as “justiciability.” At its core, justiciability determines whether a court has the authority to hear and decide a particular case. It’s not merely a procedural hurdle; rather, it’s a substantive doctrine that delineates the boundaries of judicial power, ensuring that courts operate within their constitutional remit and avoid encroaching upon the domains of the executive and legislative branches. Understanding justiciability in the Nigerian context is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the true scope of judicial review, the protection of fundamental rights, and the overall stability of the democratic system.

This comprehensive exploration delves deep into the multifaceted nature of justiciability, examining its various facets, the underlying principles, the specific doctrines that shape its application, and the practical implications for litigants and the judiciary alike.

The Philosophical Underpinnings of Justiciability

The concept of justiciability is not an arbitrary creation; it is rooted in fundamental principles of constitutional governance. These principles, though not always explicitly articulated in statutes, form the bedrock upon which the entire judicial system rests.

Separation of Powers

The most prominent philosophical underpinning of justiciability is the doctrine of separation of powers. Nigeria, like many democracies, adopts a system where governmental authority is divided among three distinct branches: the legislature (which makes laws), the executive (which implements laws), and the judiciary (which interprets laws). Justiciability acts as a vital check, preventing the judiciary from overstepping its bounds and intruding into policy-making or purely political decisions that are better left to the elected representatives of the people. It ensures that courts do not become “super-legislatures” or “super-executives,” thereby preserving the delicate balance of power.

Judicial Restraint and Deference

Closely linked to separation of powers is the principle of judicial restraint. This principle suggests that courts should exercise caution and humility when reviewing the actions of other branches of government. Justiciability is a manifestation of this restraint, guiding courts to decline jurisdiction over matters that are inherently political, abstract, or unripe for judicial determination. It acknowledges that not every societal problem has a judicial solution and that certain issues are best resolved through political processes, public discourse, or executive action. Deference, on the other hand, implies a respect for the expertise and constitutional roles of the other branches. While not absolute, it informs the judiciary’s approach to certain categories of cases, particularly those involving policy choices.

Rule of Law and Access to Justice (The Counterbalance)

While justiciability restricts judicial power, it must be balanced against the equally important principles of the rule of law and access to justice. The rule of law dictates that everyone, including the government, is subject to the law. If courts were to abdicate their responsibility entirely, the rule of law would be undermined.

Similarly, access to justice is a fundamental human right. Individuals must have a ask to seek redress for genuine grievances and to enforce their constitutional rights. Therefore, justiciability is not designed to create an impenetrable barrier to justice but rather to ensure that judicial intervention is appropriate, effective, and within the legitimate purview of the courts. The tension between these competing principles is what makes the application of justiciability so nuanced and often contentious.

Key Doctrines of Justiciability in Nigerian Law

Nigerian courts, drawing from common law traditions and their own unique constitutional jurisprudence, have developed and applied several specific doctrines to determine justiciability. These doctrines act as filters, sifting through the myriad of cases presented to the courts.

1. Locus Standi (Standing)

Perhaps the most frequently encountered justiciability doctrine in Nigerian law is locus standi, which translates to “place to stand” or “standing in court.” It refers to the legal right of a party to bring an action in court. For a case to be justiciable, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute and that they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, some injury as a result of the defendant’s actions.

Traditional Approach (Restrictive): Historically, Nigerian courts adopted a somewhat restrictive approach to locus standi, particularly in public interest litigation. The general rule was that a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct personal interest in the matter, distinct from the general public.

This often meant that individuals could not challenge government actions simply because those actions were unconstitutional or illegal; they had to show a specific adverse effect on their own rights or interests. Cases like Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) exemplified this restrictive stance, where the Supreme Court held that a litigant must show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act complained of.

Liberalization of Locus Standi (Especially in Fundamental Rights Enforcement): Over time, there has been a discernible trend towards liberalizing the rules of locus standi, particularly in cases involving fundamental human rights. The 1999 Constitution, with its expansive Chapter IV on Fundamental Rights, and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, have played a significant role in this shift. The courts have recognized that a rigid application of locus standi can impede the enforcement of constitutional rights and the promotion of good governance.

Public Interest Litigation: While still a developing area, Nigerian courts are increasingly receptive to public interest litigation, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. This allows concerned citizens or organizations to challenge actions that affect the broader public interest, even if they do not have a direct personal injury in the traditional sense. The focus shifts from a personal injury to the vindication of a public wrong or the enforcement of a constitutional norm.
Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009: These rules significantly broadened the scope of who can bring an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights. They state that “any person who alleges that any of the fundamental rights provided for in the Constitution…has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, or in relation to any other person, or in the public interest, may apply to the Court for redress.” This “any other person” and “public interest” clause represents a substantial move towards a more liberal approach.
The Fawehinmi Cases: Gani Fawehinmi, a prominent Nigerian lawyer and activist, played a pivotal role in pushing the boundaries of locus standi. His numerous cases, though not always successful on the merits, consistently challenged the restrictive interpretations and contributed to a judicial discourse that eventually led to a more expansive view.

Challenges and Nuances: Despite the liberalization, the application of locus standi remains a nuanced area. Courts still consider the nature of the right being asserted, the extent of the alleged injury, and the potential for a floodgate of litigation. There’s a continuous balancing act between ensuring access to justice and preventing vexatious or frivolous claims.

2. Ripeness

The doctrine of ripeness dictates that a court will not entertain a case if the dispute is premature or has not yet fully matured into a concrete legal controversy. The rationale is to prevent courts from issuing advisory opinions or deciding hypothetical questions. For a case to be ripe, the issues must be clear, and the parties’ rights and obligations must be definitively affected.

Key Considerations for Ripeness:

Actual or Imminent Injury: The alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not merely speculative or potential. Courts prefer to deal with present controversies rather than future ones.
Finality of Administrative Action: If the case involves challenging an administrative action, courts generally require that the administrative process be complete and the decision final before judicial review can be sought. This allows administrative agencies to complete their work and potentially resolve issues without judicial intervention.
Hardship to the Parties: Courts may consider the hardship that delaying judicial review would impose on the parties. If waiting would cause significant and irreparable harm, the court might deem the case ripe even if some aspects are still evolving.

Examples in Nigerian Law: A case challenging a proposed bill before it has been passed into law and assented to would likely be deemed unripe. Similarly, a challenge to an administrative policy that has not yet been applied to the plaintiff would probably be considered premature. The court wants to see a real, tangible dispute.

3. Mootness

Mootness is the inverse of ripeness. It dictates that a court will not hear a case if the controversy has already ceased to exist or has become purely academic. If a judicial decision would no longer have any practical effect on the rights or interests of the parties, the case is considered moot.

Reasons for Mootness:

Change in Circumstances: The events that gave rise to the dispute may have changed, rendering the original issue irrelevant. For example, if a student challenges their suspension from school, and the suspension period expires before the court can hear the case, the issue might become moot.
Settlement: If the parties settle the dispute out of court, the case becomes moot as there is no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve.
Repeal of Law/Policy: If the law or policy being challenged is repealed or withdrawn, the case challenging its validity may become moot.

Exceptions to Mootness:

Public Importance and Likelihood of Recurrence: Even if a case is technically moot, courts may still decide it if the issue is one of public importance, capable of repetition, yet evading review. This is particularly relevant in cases involving short-term events or issues that are likely to recur but would always become moot before a definitive ruling could be obtained. For example, election petitions sometimes fall into this category.
Collateral Consequences: If there are still collateral consequences flowing from the original dispute, even if the primary issue is resolved, the case may not be moot. For instance, a criminal conviction may be moot in terms of immediate incarceration, but still carry implications for a person’s reputation or future employment.

Nigerian courts generally follow these principles of mootness, seeking to avoid expending judicial resources on issues that no longer present a live controversy.

4. Political Question Doctrine

This is perhaps the most complex and contentious aspect of justiciability. The political question doctrine holds that certain issues, by their very nature, are so inherently political that they are non-justiciable and should be resolved by the political branches of government (executive or legislature) rather than the judiciary. This doctrine is a cornerstone of judicial restraint and aims to preserve the separation of powers.

Rationale for the Political Question Doctrine:

Respect for Co-Equal Branches: Courts recognize that certain decisions are best left to the branches that are directly accountable to the electorate.
Lack of Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards: Some political questions lack objective legal standards that courts can apply to reach a decision. They involve policy choices, resource allocation, and complex political judgments that are ill-suited for judicial determination.
Avoidance of Embarrassment to Co-Equal Branches: Judicial intervention in highly sensitive political matters can lead to conflicts between branches of government and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Textual Commitment to Another Branch: The Constitution may explicitly or implicitly commit a particular issue to the discretion of another branch.

Application in Nigerian Context:

The application of the political question doctrine in Nigeria has been inconsistent and often debated. While Nigerian courts generally acknowledge the doctrine, they have been cautious in applying it to avoid abdicating their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and protect fundamental rights.

Issues Often Considered Political:
- Foreign Policy and Treaty Relations: Generally, the conduct of foreign policy, diplomatic recognition, and treaty negotiations are considered executive functions and are largely non-justiciable. Courts are reluctant to second-guess the executive’s decisions in these areas.
- Declarations of War or Emergency Powers: While the constitution grants the President powers in these areas, the courts are usually loath to intervene in the specifics of such decisions, focusing instead on the constitutional procedures followed.
- Impeachment Proceedings: The process of impeachment of the President, Vice President, Governor, or Deputy Governor, as outlined in the Constitution, is largely considered a political process within the legislative domain. Courts generally refrain from interfering with the substantive grounds for impeachment, focusing instead on procedural compliance. However, there have been instances where courts have intervened when the impeachment process has been fraught with clear constitutional violations or a lack of due process, suggesting a nuanced approach.
- Budgetary Allocations and Fiscal Policy: Decisions regarding how public funds are allocated and broad fiscal policies are primarily legislative and executive responsibilities. Courts are generally hesitant to substitute their judgment for that of the elected representatives.
Judicial Willingness to Intervene (Where Constitutional Rights are at Stake): Despite the existence of the political question doctrine, Nigerian courts have demonstrated a willingness to intervene even in seemingly political matters if there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. The line between a purely political question and a constitutional issue that requires judicial interpretation is often blurry.
- For example, while the declaration of a state of emergency might be considered a political act, a challenge based on the procedural non-compliance with constitutional requirements for such a declaration would likely be considered justiciable.
- Similarly, while budgetary allocations are political, a challenge to a budget provision that discriminates against a particular group in violation of fundamental rights would be justiciable.

The political question doctrine in Nigeria is not an absolute bar to judicial review. Courts carefully scrutinize each case to determine whether the issue presented is truly a political question without judicially manageable standards, or whether it raises a legitimate constitutional question that requires judicial interpretation and enforcement.

5. Abstention Doctrine

The abstention doctrine, though less frequently discussed as a distinct justiciability doctrine in Nigeria compared to the others, is still relevant. It refers to a situation where a federal court declines to exercise its jurisdiction over a case, even when it has it, often out of deference to state courts or to avoid interfering with ongoing state proceedings.

While Nigeria operates a unified judicial system (federal and state courts are part of the same hierarchy under the Supreme Court), the principles underlying abstention can still apply in certain contexts, particularly where a case involves novel questions of state law that state courts are better equipped to interpret, or where there are ongoing criminal or administrative proceedings at a lower level that should be allowed to run their course. The emphasis here is on judicial comity and avoiding unnecessary friction between different levels of the judiciary or between the judiciary and administrative bodies.

Interplay and Overlap of Justiciability Doctrines

It is crucial to understand that these doctrines of justiciability do not operate in isolation. They often overlap and interact in complex ways, with a single case potentially raising questions of locus standi, ripeness, and mootness simultaneously.

For example, a plaintiff might bring a case challenging a government policy. The court might first consider whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring the action. If standing is established, the court might then consider whether the policy has been sufficiently finalized to be ripe for judicial review. If, during the course of litigation, the government repeals the policy, the case might then become moot. The political question doctrine, meanwhile, could be raised as a defense by the government at any stage.

The cumulative effect of these doctrines is to ensure that courts are presented with genuine, concrete, and live controversies that are amenable to judicial resolution, thereby upholding the principles of separation of powers and judicial restraint.

The Nigerian Context: Unique Challenges and Considerations

While the principles of justiciability are universal, their application in Nigeria is shaped by several unique factors:

1. The Proactive Role of the Judiciary in a Nascent Democracy

Nigeria’s democratic journey has been punctuated by periods of military rule and constitutional instability. In this context, the judiciary has often played a crucial role in upholding the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and providing a check on executive excesses. This has sometimes led to a more assertive judiciary, willing to push the boundaries of justiciability in the interest of democratic consolidation and human rights protection. The liberalization of locus standi is a prime example of this trend.

2. The Expansive Nature of the 1999 Constitution

The 1999 Constitution (as amended) is a detailed and extensive document, containing not only provisions for the structure of government but also an elaborate chapter on fundamental rights and even “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.” The latter, while generally considered non-justiciable, sometimes blur the lines and lead to debates about the justiciability of certain social and economic rights.

3. Socio-Economic Rights and Justiciability

A significant debate in Nigerian constitutional law revolves around the justiciability of socio-economic rights, enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution as “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.” These include rights to education, health, adequate living standards, etc. Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution explicitly states that the provisions of Chapter II “shall not be justiciable.”

The Non-Justiciability Clause: This clause presents a significant challenge to the full realization of socio-economic rights. It means that individuals generally cannot approach a court to compel the government to provide these services or to hold it accountable for failing to meet these objectives.
Indirect Enforcement and “Shadow Justiciability”: Despite the non-justiciability clause, there have been arguments for “indirect justiciability” or “shadow justiciability.” This involves linking socio-economic rights to justiciable fundamental rights. For example, while the right to health might not be directly justiciable, a lack of access to healthcare leading to a violation of the right to life (a justiciable fundamental right) could potentially form the basis of a claim. Similarly, the right to education, while in Chapter II, can be linked to the right to dignity of the human person.
International Law and Domestic Application: Nigeria has ratified several international human rights treaties that recognize socio-economic rights as justiciable. There is ongoing debate about how these international obligations interact with the non-justiciability clause in the Nigerian Constitution and whether they can be used to compel domestic justiciability.
The SERAP Case and its Impact: In 2012, the Federal High Court in Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor. ruled that socio-economic rights, as contained in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (which is domesticated in Nigeria), are justiciable. This landmark decision offered a glimmer of hope for the direct enforcement of socio-economic rights, though its full implications are still being explored and tested in higher courts. The case highlights the ongoing tension and evolution in the interpretation of justiciability in relation to socio-economic rights.

4. Public Interest Litigation and its Evolution

The evolution of locus standi directly reflects the growing importance of public interest litigation in Nigeria. As civil society organizations and activist lawyers become more vocal, the demand for broader access to justice for issues affecting the wider public has increased. This push for public interest litigation challenges the traditional restrictive notions of justiciability and compels courts to adapt their approaches.

The Importance of Justiciability

The concept of justiciability is not merely an academic exercise; it has profound practical implications for the Nigerian legal system and its citizens:

Defines the Role of the Judiciary: Justiciability clearly demarcates the boundaries of judicial power, ensuring that courts remain arbiters of law and not policy-makers. This is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and its legitimacy.
Upholds Separation of Powers: By preventing judicial overreach into the legislative and executive domains, justiciability reinforces the fundamental principle of separation of powers, which is essential for a stable and accountable government.
Promotes Judicial Efficiency: By filtering out unripe, moot, or purely political questions, justiciability helps courts focus their resources on genuine legal controversies that are amenable to judicial resolution, thereby promoting efficiency in the administration of justice.
Ensures Rule of Law and Access to Justice (with caveats): While acting as a gatekeeper, justiciability, particularly with the liberalization of locus standi, also serves to ensure that individuals and groups with legitimate grievances have access to the courts to enforce their rights and challenge unconstitutional actions.
Shapes Constitutional Development: The ongoing judicial interpretation and application of justiciability doctrines continuously shape the development of Nigerian constitutional law, reflecting the evolving needs and challenges of society.
Impact on Governance: Justiciability influences how government decisions are made and challenged. Knowing the limits of judicial review can guide legislative drafting and executive action, encouraging adherence to constitutional norms.

Conclusion

Justiciability is a dynamic and evolving concept in Nigerian constitutional law, representing a delicate balance between judicial restraint and the imperative of ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. The doctrines of locus standi, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine serve as vital filters, guiding courts in determining which cases are appropriate for judicial resolution.

While the traditional approach emphasized a more restrictive interpretation, particularly regarding locus standi and socio-economic rights, there has been a discernible trend towards a more liberal and pragmatic approach, especially in the context of fundamental human rights enforcement and the increasing prominence of public interest litigation. The continuous engagement of the Nigerian judiciary with these complex issues reflects its crucial role in navigating the challenges of a developing democracy and in safeguarding the constitutional order.

Understanding justiciability is not just about knowing the rules; it’s about appreciating the underlying principles that shape the very nature of judicial power in Nigeria. It’s about recognizing the intricate interplay between law and politics, and the judiciary’s often challenging, yet indispensable, role in ensuring accountability and protecting the rights of all citizens within the framework of a democratic constitution. As Nigeria’s constitutional jurisprudence continues to mature, the interpretation and application of justiciability will undoubtedly remain a focal point of legal discourse and an essential determinant of the future of its democratic institutions.

Table of Contents