By Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko, JSC (Rtd.)
I agree with the Senate President’s suggested notification of judgment to the office of the Attorney General for compliance and enforcement.
The existing provisions of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, requiring the consent and leave of the Attorney General as precondition for enforcement of court orders/judgement against government offend and are in conflict with several provisions of the Constitution, notably equality of litigants before the law at the law court.
Our governments are not above the law (following abrogation of Petition of Right under the extant Constitution); fair hearing provisions of the Constitution (especially sections 17 & 36 thereof). The Attorney General, who is “dominis litis” in all mitigations against government, cannot be a judge in his own cause nor should he be clothed with powers to override or frustrate decisions of law courts.
The office of the Attorney General, not being one of the courts the judicial powers of the Federation and the States have been entrusted by section 6 of the Constitution, shall not exercise same before, during and after trial. The Constitution has specifically vested in the courts powers to enforce their own judgement or judgement of courts superior to them.
In the circumstance the National Assembly should simply delete the offensive provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and substitute the provisions in the commendable manner suggested by the Senate President.
By section 287 of the Constitution, decisions of all courts are to be enforced by the courts and courts subordinate, and by all persons and authorities. The Attorney General belongs to the class of “persons and authorities” on whom the Constitution obligates to enforce court decisions. There is no dearth of superior court decisions on this including: Odebunmi v. Oladimeji (2012) LPELR-15419 (CA), Yar’Adua v. Yandoma (2014) LPELR-24217(SC).
