The Advocate
By Onikepo Braithwaite
In a significant development, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, has initiated a review of the Laws of the Federation last audited in 2004. The review will be led by Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, former Attorney-General of Ekiti State and a contributor to our column, “Serious Matters.” This move is not only timely but essential, as many of our laws still impose ludicrous penalties, such as fines of N20, a figure that feels absurd even by the standards of 2004. Numerous laws have become outdated, irrelevant, or simply inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Consider the Stamp Duties Act (SDA), which prescribes fines for various offenses that seem almost laughable today—such as a N20 fine for obstructing authorized inspectors from examining documents subject to stamp duty. Can you really buy even a single TomTom sweet or a kolanut for N20? Similarly, under the National Youth Service Corps Act (NYSC Act), individuals who fail to report for service face a fine of only N2,000—a figure that hardly reflects the gravity of the obligation.
Moreover, some statutes have outlived their purpose and need to be eliminated entirely.
There’s also the pressing issue of laws that contradict the Constitution. For example, I recently highlighted the inconsistencies in Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), which allows an elevated judge to complete criminal matters without regard to the constitutional requirements outlined in Sections 253, 258, and 273. This provision was initially struck down by Justice Gabriel Kolawole and later declared null and void by the Supreme Court in the case of Ude Jones Udeogu v FRN, Orji Uzor Kalu & Slok Nig. Ltd (2020).
The Law Review Committee will need to scrutinize every existing law meticulously. Even if a comprehensive constitutional overhaul isn’t on the table right now, certain amendments will be necessary for better alignment between the Constitution and existing statutes to achieve the intended legal framework for the country.
For instance, Section 179(2) of the Constitution details the criteria for declaring a gubernatorial candidate duly elected, while Section 78 grants the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the authority to conduct elections. In cases where INEC deems an election inconclusive, there should be a clear amendment to Section 179(2) allowing this outcome. The current provisions are precise and cannot be amended through subsidiary legislation or INEC guidelines.
The 2018 Osun Gubernatorial election serves as a case in point. Senator Ademola Adeleke met the criteria established in Section 179(2) but was nonetheless deprived of the title of duly elected Governor when INEC declared the election inconclusive. This situation raises questions about the supremacy of the Constitution, which clearly establishes the ultimate authority of its provisions, including their binding nature on all entities, INEC included.
Controversies have also arisen surrounding the appointment of Minister of Arts and Culture, Hanatu Musawa, due to her not having completed her NYSC program. However, the Constitution does not stipulate NYSC completion as a prerequisite for a ministerial appointment. Though many argued she should finish her service before assuming such a role, Section 147(5) merely requires a ministerial appointee to be eligible for election to the House of Representatives—a standard that does not include NYSC completion.
Further complicating matters is Section 2(1) of the NYSC Act, which details who must complete the program, alongside exceptions outlined in Section 2(2). To streamline the process, it may be beneficial to explicitly clarify the requirements for ministerial appointments.
The National Assembly (NASS) has often failed in its constitutional duty to enact laws that promote good governance, sometimes yielding to specific interests rather than the common good. It’s essential for the Assembly to prioritize the formulation of beneficial laws as diligently as it advocates for national honors.
Additionally, recent legislative changes have raised concerns about their intentions. For instance, the amendment to Section 38(2) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act expanded the government’s Ways and Means Advances, seemingly catering to specific interests instead of the nation’s broader economic policy.
Moreover, the provisions regarding the Inspector General of Police under the Nigeria Police Act 2020 raise questions about retirement age and service tenure, highlighting potential discrepancies between the law and practical application.
Ultimately, the Law Review Committee’s objective should go beyond merely adjusting outdated fines; it must engage in a comprehensive evaluation of our legal statutes. This includes grappling with contentious issues like the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2013 (SSMPA), which raises significant ethical and legal questions regarding personal freedoms and human rights.
Navigating these complexities will undoubtedly pose challenges for the Fapohunda Committee, but we wish them every success in their endeavor. The future of Nigeria’s legal framework depends on it.
