JUSTICIABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY ASSIGNED IN CHAPTER TWO OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDRAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ASAMENDED.

Authored By: Richard Praise Ayebabomo

Imo State University

ABSTRACT

Chapter two of the constitution starting from section 13 to 31 of the constitution provides for the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, which provides socio-economic rights. The non-justiciable nature of the chapter two of the 1999 constitution as amended which means that while the objective outlined there serves as important national aspirations and moral guidelines, and do not provide a strong legal basisfor direct enforcement. The nature of this chapter of the constitution has been argued on consequently why it should be made justiciable rather than remain non-justiciable. Despite the provision of chapter two a good number of Nigerians has argued that the socio-economic rightsseems not to be part of the constitution. The non-justifiability of this provision deprives the court its jurisdiction on a matter based on the provision of this chapter. Even when real interest and tights are infringed upon. This paper moving on argues that the non-justifiability of this chapter two of the 1999 constitution (as amended) is nothing more or less than an infringement of right and should be made justiciable. In other words matters relating to this provision should be tried in courts.

INTRODUCTION

Nigerian government continuously promote the political and civil rights given little if not no attention to the socio-economic rights we speak of. Regardless of the presence of this right we have in the constitution (as amended) there is an alarming concern of poverty, inequality between the rich and the poor, unemployment and many other socio-economic vices.

The fact that these vices are prevailing is proof that this provision has done no good as it ought to have done. Critically examining the provisions of the chapter two and its purpose comparing it with actual facts is clearly seen that the non- justifiability of this chapter is a mistake that needs to be corrected.

Explanation of important term used in the paper

Constitution: A constitution is or are fundamental laws of a nation or state which establishes the basic principles of the government. In FRN vs Osahon, it was assumed that the constitution of any country is a mirror of what people want, including their governance. As a result of this (what people want) there should not be a slight trace of ambiguity in the constitution. In other words there should be proper interpretations of the provision of the constitution. This interpretation is done by the courts of law. The fact that the constitution is a mirror of what the people want is seen in the first statements made in the 1999 constitution (as amended) “We the people of the federal republic of Nigeria….Do hereby make, and give to Ourselves the following constitution”.

Economic Rights: These are the rights provided for in the chapter 2 of the 1999 CFRN from section 13 to 24 technically put as FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY.

Rights: These are legal, social or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement that is, rights are fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention or ethical theory.

Non- justiciable Rights: These are rights contained in the second chapter of the Nigerian constitution and are not enforceable and non- justiciable. In other words they cannot be tried in courts of law to try any matter relating to chapter two of the CFRN 1999 (as amended).

Justiciability: This refers to the types of matters that court can adjudicate upon. In Nigeria only the civil and political are justiciable leaving the socio-economic rights non-justiciable.

BODY/ARGUMENT

The chapter two of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria (as amended) provided for the socio-economic rights of citizens. The provision of this chapter are found attractive by citizens and expected to make Nigeria a better and comfortable and functioning place to be in. unfortunately, the provisions of this chapter is everything and anything except justiciable. Meaning that they are not enforceable and cannot be adjudicated upon by any court. This is due to the provisions of section 6(6) thus;

“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section – (c) shall not except as otherwise provided by this constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy set out in chapter two”.

The above provision have completely ousted the jurisdiction of courts hearing matters relating to chapter two.

Lawyers as well as judges are making a very big mistake by implying that only civil and political rights are enforceable in Nigeria. Implying that those whose socio-economic rights have been violated should be overlooked a left without provisions for remedy. This provision has taken away the locus standi on this matter.

Moving on this paper continues to challenge the non-justiciable nature of chapter two of the 1999 constitution. The human rights commission drafted two important international documents; the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights to have a legally binding effect on states that ratified their documents some jurists argue that socio-economic rights do not constitute legal norms. Aside the political and civil rights which are justiciable under the 999 constitution of the FRN (as amended).

Chapter two has caused lack of development and hindrance to socio-economic growth. In Arch bishop Anthony Okojie v. Attorney general of Lagos state the court held that the fundamental objective and state policy are non-justiciable and the Nigerian courts lack jurisdiction which is why we should question the non-justiciability of chapter two.

Why will a court’s jurisdiction be taken away and why do 40% of Nigerians live below the poverty line according to the National Bureau of Statistics, despite the provision of section 16.

These things should make us wonder because chapter two was made to solve this problems but as a result of its non-justiciable nature it has been pushed under the carpet. Despite the fact that the rights and duties enclosed in chapter two of the constitution, section 6(6) changes the promises and into a stepping stone for rights of “some” citizens to be considered useless simply because they are not enforceable.

In the words of learned silk Foluke Sonlake SAN “……..and yet I believe in the provisions in chapter two Are the soul and spirit of the constitution “. The above signifies the irrelevance of the chapter two as a result of the non-justiciable nature. The illogicality of this provisions is something that should be looked into.

This chapter should be considered fraud on the part of the law makers. It has successfully made the sovereignty of the people to be questioned which is not meant to be questioned in the democratic system of government.

“…. sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria ….

The above cited section is ironical in comparison to the provisions of chapter two. What is the use of the legal terminology “ ubi jus ubi Remedium” meaning where there is law there is remedy.

PROPOSED REASONS AND BENEFITS OF ENFORCABILITY OF CHAPTER TWO OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

The chapter two if made enforceable would me made relevant and will no longer be considered a toothless bulldog.
The citizens will be able to push the government to carry out their responsibilities and duties.
There will be rapid social and economic growth.
The court’s jurisdiction will be fully restored.

SUGGESTIONS

A .the legislature should remove or amend section 6(6) from the constitution. B .the judiciary must be committed in upholding the socio-economic rights of citizens.i C. the government and agencies must adhare to rulings of courts.

CONCLUSION

Based on my arguments so far I say the best decision the legislature will make is to make chapter two of the 1999 constitution (as amended) justiciable.

This will yield rapid socio-economic growth thereby reducing poverty in the country. Citizens will be able to hold leaders accountable which is one sole purpose of democracy. The courts will regain their right as stated in the constitution.