By Tonye Clinton Jaja
When we were children, both our school teachers and our parents taught us the common sense of delivering equitable judgments.
Whenever there was a case of two persons fighting, after adjudication, either the parents or teacher would flog both parties.
Although they may allocate more strokes of the cane for the person who started the fight. However, they would deliver lesser strokes of the cane to the innocent person. They would tell the said innocent person that next time, he ought to report to the teacher or parent instead of taking laws into his hands by fighting the provocateur.
In yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment, it appears that this commonsense of equitable allocation of blame was not applied equitably.
It appears that no blame was apportioned to the faction that instigated the conflagration in the first place.
It appears that the innocent party’s right to self-defence as protected by the doctrine of necessity was not considered at all.
At least the MORALITY and NECESSITY to the right to self-defence as a form of immediate first aid before approaching the court of law ought to be considered!!!
As usual, with the majority of its judgment, the Supreme Court of Nigeria strictly does not give consideration to moral principles or moral content, it is purely a consideration of the law and provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
However, this PURITANICAL and LEGALISTIC approach to the interpretation of legislation and the Nigerian Constitution is not without its unintended consequences.
In addition to this PURITANICAL and LEGALISTIC approach, is the doctrine of infallibility of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN) is the highest appellate court in the country. The decision of the court and its actions are not only final but are seen as infallible and sacrosanct.
This view is expressed in the maxim:
“The Supreme Court is final not because it is infallible, but it is infallible because it is final”.
Like a double-edged sword, this doctrine of infallibility (and absence of moral content) and finality of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, although it serves and has some beneficial purpose, also has negative unintended consequences!!!
Take for example, the case of Adegbenro vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (1962) 1 Nigerian Law Reports, 338 and the related case of F.R.A. Williams V Dr. M.A. Majekodunmi (Case No.2) (1962) 1 NLR 328 are both regarded as flawed judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria because they both validated the actions taken towards the enactment of the Emergency Powers Act 1961.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria specifically stated that they were not interested in whether the said legislation was enacted out of malice or bad faith (mala fide), so long as the process for enactment of the said law complied with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
However, as history shows, the said legislation was the trigger for the violence in the Western Region of Nigeria that eventually precipitated the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 to 1970!!!
This is a cautionary tale of what can happen when any judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is 100% devoid of any moral content or consideration!!!
👆Is it deja vu?!!!
It was the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the year 1962 (Adegbenro V. Attorney-General of the Federation) that triggered the declaration of a state of emergency in the Western Region crisis that eventually precipitated the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970!!!
Now again, another judgment of the Supreme Court of 28th February 2025 has precipitated a declaration of a state of emergency!!!
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja
Executive Director,
Nigerian Law Society (NLS).
