The Principle of Judicial Review in Nigeria

 The Principle of Judicial Review in Nigeria: Limits and Scope

Olaore Raheemat Adebola  

Fountain University

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The principle of judicial review represents a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government remain within the bounds set by the constitution. 

In Nigeria, this principle is entrenched in the country's legal framework and plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. Judicial review in Nigeria empowers the judiciary to scrutinize and, if necessary, invalidate legislative and executive actions that are deemed unconstitutional. This power is derived from the Nigerian Constitution, which mandates that all government actions must conform to constitutional provisions.  

 

DEFINITION

 

    Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

 

    Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and determine the legality or constitutionality of actions taken by the government, including laws, executive orders, and administrative decisions. It ensures that these actions comply with the Constitution and legal standards.

 

 

 

     Judicial review operates under several key laws and constitutional provisions. The most pertinent is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which serves as the supreme law of the land. Specific provisions and laws under which judicial review operates include:

 

Section 1(3): Establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, stating that any law inconsistent with it is void. This gives the judiciary the power to review and invalidate laws or actions that contradict the Constitution.

 

Chapter IV (Fundamental Rights): Protects fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement. Courts can review government actions or legislation that infringe on these rights.

 

Section 6(6)(b): Provides the judicial powers of the courts, giving them authority to determine if acts or laws passed by the National Assembly or the executive are in violation of the Constitution or other legal principles.

 

There are also remedies granted under the application for judicial review under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. Order 40, Rules 1-11 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure,Order 43 Rule (6) of the High Court Rules of River State, etc. A case under the High Court Rules of River State as regarding judicial review is the case of Madam Akon Iyoho v E.P.E Effiong Esq & Anr

 

Here are some importance of judicial review as followed;

 

1)Protects Fundamental Rights: Judicial review safeguards individual rights by allowing courts to overturn laws or actions that infringe on fundamental human rights. This ensures that citizens’ freedoms, such as freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial, are protected from unjust laws or governmental overreach.

 

2)Promotes the Rule of Law: Through judicial review, the judiciary upholds the rule of law by ensuring that all branches of government operate within legal limits. It prevents arbitrary governance, where decisions are made without legal justification, promoting fairness and justice.

 

3)Maintains the Separation of Powers: Judicial review helps maintain the balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. By acting as a check on the other branches, the judiciary prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful or acting beyond its legal authority.

 

 

4)Provision of Accountability:Judicial review holds the government accountable for its actions. When laws or policies are challenged, the judiciary scrutinizes their legality, ensuring that government officials and lawmakers are responsible for their decisions and actions under the law.

 

 

5)Acts as a Check on Executive Power: Judicial review restrains executive overreach by examining the legality of executive orders, decrees, and actions. It prevents the executive from bypassing or undermining legislative authority or infringing on individual liberties.

 

 

6)Promotes Justice and Fairness: Judicial review ensures that laws and policies are applied justly and fairly. When courts review actions that seem unjust or discriminatory, they can restore fairness by annulling those actions, ensuring equal treatment under the law.

 

Judicial review can be sought on several grounds, including:

●The authority acted without legal powers.

●The authority exceeded its legal authority.

●The authority failed to follow the principles of natural justice.

●The authority acted based on a misinterpretation of the law.

 

The process for seeking judicial review in Nigeria involves two main stages:

 

1. Ex parte motion:

The applicant first files an ex parte motion, which is an application made without notifying the other party. This is done to seek the court’s permission (leave) to pursue the judicial review. The court will assess whether the motion involves a potential infringement of public rights and whether the applicant has a sufficient legal interest in the matter.

 

 

2. Judicial review application:

If leave is granted, the applicant can proceed by filing the judicial review application, notifying the other party. The court may reject the application if the applicant does not have a legitimate interest in the issue.

 

 

The court will review the decision if it determines there has been:

 

Excessive use of legislative power,Acts done ultra vires (beyond legal authority),A breach of the principles of natural justice, orFailure to comply with the law or the Constitution.

 

Judicial review is considered a remedy of last resort and is not applicable for all types of decisions or refusals.

 

 

Remedies under judicial review. 

 

Remedies under judicial review are legal tools that courts use to address violations of public law by government bodies or officials. These remedies aim to ensure that public authorities act lawfully, fairly, and within their powers. Common remedies include:

 

●Certiorari: Quashes an unlawful decision made by a public authority, rendering it void. In Onwumechili v Akintemi, the respondents, law students from the Faculty of Law at the University of Ife, were suspended with immediate effect for the remainder of the academic session. They sought an order of certiorari to quash the suspension, arguing that the Vice Chancellor, the 1st appellant, had failed to observe the rules of natural justice. The trial judge upheld the respondents' claim and granted the requested relief. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered and determined the case.

 

●Prohibition: Prevents a public authority from acting beyond its jurisdiction or making an illegal decision.

 

●Mandamus: Compels a public authority to perform a duty it has unlawfully refused or neglected.The development of the remedy of mandamus reached its peak in the landmark case of Shitta Bey v The Federal Public Service Commission. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, issuing an order to reinstate a public servant whose removal had previously been deemed wrongful by the High Court.

 

●Injunction: Orders a public authority to stop an ongoing or future illegal act.

 

● Declaration: Clarifies the rights or legal position of the parties without compelling any action.

 

●Damages: Compensates an individual for loss or harm caused by unlawful public authority actions, though less common in judicial review.

 

Now, despite the pros and importance of judicial review, there's limits. These limits prevent the judiciary from overstepping its bounds or encroaching on the powers of other branches of Government. Some of these limits are as followed:

 

 

○Separation of Powers:

Judicial review cannot make or enforce laws or interfere with political decisions, as these are the roles of the legislative and executive branches.

 

 

○ Judicial competence :

Courts only handle legal disputes, not political questions. Issues like policy decisions or executive discretion are outside their scope.

 

 

○Standing:

Only those directly affected by a decision can seek judicial review; hypothetical or unrelated claims are not entertained.

 

 

○Time Limitations:

Judicial review applications typically need to be filed within a certain time frame after the decision in question is made. Failure to meet these deadlines can bar the review.

 

 

○Finality of Certain Decisions :

Decisions related to national security, defense, or executive privilege may be beyond judicial review for public interest reasons.

 

 

    In conclusion, Judicial review ensures actions taken by the Government are in accordance with the law. Judicial review gives the courts the power to examine the constitutionality of government actions, such as laws, executive orders, and of course administrative decisions. However, it's important to recognize the limitations of judicial review, as it cannot wield absolute power.