Okonjo Iwehinla v. Fawehinmi & Ors

CASE TITLE AND CITATION

Okonjo – Iwehinla v. Fawehinmi & Ors

LPELR – 80834(SC), 7NWLR (Pt.1988) 1, Supreme Court of Nigeria, 2025.

COURT NAME AND BENCH

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Unanimous Judgement delivered by Hon. Justice Stephen Jonah Adah

DATE OF JUDGEMENT

February 7, 2025

PARTIES INVOLVED

• Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN (deceased; substituted by Saheed Fawehinmi) – Plaintiff/Respondent at the Supreme Court Level.
• (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo – Iweala – Federal Minister of Finance and Appellant
• Ambassador Olufemi Adeniji – Minister of External Affairs, Respondent.
• The President of Nigeria, Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, and other government officials – Respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The origin of this landmark litigation / case is traced down back to an originating summon filed by a renowned human right lawyer and activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, in 2004 at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The summons sought to challenge the legality of certain salary payments made to Federal Ministers of Nigeria, particularly Dr. Ngozi Okonjo – Iweila and Ambassador Olufemi Adeniji.

Fawehinmi contended that the payment made to these Ministers were unlawful on several grounds. Principal among these was the ministers’ receiving salaries in foreign currency, specifically the United States dollars at amounts significantly exceeding what was statutorily permitted. He argued this was in breach of certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances) Act, No. 6 of 2002, which prescribed salaries and allowances for public officers including Ministers. The statue limited yearly salaries to an amount roughly equivalent to N794,085. However, the ministers were receiving annual payments in US dollars approximating $247,000, which converted to Nigerian Naira was about 36 million, an amount far beyond the statutory cap.

The suit accused the President of Nigeria and other respondents of authorizing and facilitating these excessive payments constituting abuse of executive power and contravening constitutional and statutory limits.

Fawehinmi sought declaratory reliefs that this salary arrangement was unlawful and an order compelling restitution of the excess payments made.

The respondents contested the suit, initially raising a preliminary objection that Fawehinmi lacked the requisite legal standing, or locus standi, to bring the action. They maintained he was not directly affected or harmed and thus had no cause to sue. The Federal High Court agreed and struck out the suit for lack of locus standi.

Fawehinmi appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the lower court, holding that he had locus standi as a concerned citizen to institute the suite. The appellant court underscored that in matters of public interest particularly involving constitutional questions, stringent locus standi requirements should be relaxed to allow enforcement of rights and checks on government power.

Dissatisfied, Okonjo – Iweila and others appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in their favor, striking out the suit for lack of locus standi.

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether Federal Ministers are lawfully entitled to receive salaries in foreign currency exceeding statutory limits.
• Whether authorization of such payments amounts to an abuse of constitutional or statutory powers.
• The key legal question: whether Fawehinmi possessed the necessary locus standi to bring public interest litigation.
• The proper judicial approach and threshold for locus standi in public interest and constitutional matters under Nigerian law.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

PLAINTIFF (FAWEHINMI)

Fawehinmi argued that as a senior lawyer and public-spirited citizen, he was entitled to institute proceedings to challenge illegality and abuse of power affecting the public purse and governance. He contended that prosecutor standing should be relaxed in matters involving enforcement of constitutional provisions and prevention of public office abuses. He relied on principles of public interest litigation developed in Nigerian Jurisprudence permitting concerned citizens to maintain actions where public rights or laws are in jeopardy, even without direct personal injury. Fawehinmi emphasized that the payments were unofficial, bypassing legal limits, and thus demanded judicial intervention and restitution.

RESPONDENTS (OKONJO – IWEILA AND OTHERS)

The respondents also argued that locus standi remained a jurisdictional precondition which Fawehinmi failed to satisfy. They asserted that he neither suffered personal injury nor showed any specific legal interest directly impacted by alleged overpayments. The respondents argued the courts cannot be burdened with abstract or hypothetical grievances filed by individuals lacking a concrete stake. They emphasized that the principle of standing was essential curb frivolous or vexatious litigation and protect the separation of powers. The respondents further argued that the Court of Appeal erred by expanding locus standi beyond its legitimate bounds, undermining judicial discipline.

JUDGEMENT AND FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Okonjo – Iweila and other respondents, setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It held that Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the suit, and consequently the originating summons was incompetent and rightly struck out by the Federal High Court.

The Supreme Court reiterated that locus standi is a fundamental jurisdictional condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power under Nigerian law and the constitution. The court declared that without locus standi, a court lacks power to adjudicate or determine the matter whatsoever. It rejected all interpretation of liberal locus standi that suspends the plaintiff’s requirement to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest or legal right affected.

Furthermore, the court noted that the claim brought by Fawehinmi was essentially personal and did not survive his death; thus, his estate could not inherit the cause of action. The court confirmed that standing cannot arise merely from being a taxpayer, a political party chairman, or a public – spirited lawyer; evidence of a direct and tangible interest or injury is required.

In conclusion, the supreme court held that the appeal succeeded and the originating summons filed by Fawehinmi was struck out for lack of locus standi.

LEGAL REASONING AND RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court’s decision focused chiefly on the doctrine of locus standi; which means its status as a threshold jurisdictional requirement and the limits of its application in the public interest litigation.

The court emphasized that locus standi is neither procedural formality nor technically but a substantive and constitutional condition precedent inherent in judicial powers. To invoke the jurisdiction of courts, a claimant must establish a trial of locus standi elements: a legal right or interest in the subject matter, a concrete and particularized injury or harm (actual or threatened) to that right or interest, and a causative nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the injury.

Despite Nigeria’s development of public interest litigation allowing relaxation of locus standi requirements, the court was clear that such liberalization is not absolute. There must remain a tangible connection or sufficient interest in the subject matter, especially where the claim concerns executive conduct or public funds.

The court provided guidance and guidelines against a carte blanche right to sue based solely on status as a taxpayer or concerned citizen. Instead, the test remains whether the plaintiff can demonstrate sufficient legal challenge worthy of judicial intervention. This prevents the courts from being flooded with abstract, hypothetical, or purely academic grievances.

Notably, the court declined to endorse the Court of Appeal’s broader approach which efficiently deemphasized locus standi in constitutional and public law cases. The Supreme Court’s ratio is that locus standi safeguards separation of powers by ensuring courts only hear justiciable controversies with proper parties and genuine disputes.

Regarding the specific claim of salary payments outside statutory limits, the court refrained from adjudicating the substantive constitutional or statutory issues, underscoring that jurisdiction must first be established via locus standi. Without this, the court cannot proceed on merits.

The court also noted procedural consequences following the death of a plaintiff in public interest suits, ruling that such cause of action are not transmissible as personal claims unless otherwise by law.

CONCLUSION AND OBSERVATION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Okonjo – Iweila v. Fawehinmi & Ors is a landmark reaffirmation of the doctrine of locus standi under Nigerian constitutional law. It establishes that while the courts retain latitude to facilitate access to justice on matters of public interest, this latitude is bounded by the fundamental requirement of locus standi as a guard against judicial overreach.

This case provides clarity and judicial reaffirmation that locus standi remains a substantive jurisdictional threshold. The ruling curbs overly liberal standing doctrines that risk frivolous litigation and preserve judicial economy by ensuring claims brought as anchored in justiciable interests.

The decision is also significant in that it clarifies the limits of who qualifies as a proper claimant for enforcement of constitutional and public law rights. It signals to lawyers, human rights activists and civil society that standing must be grounded in legal rights and interests rather than mere taxpayer or public spiritedness.

Practically, this case serves as a key precedent for litigants and courts in future constitutional, administrative and public interest litigation across Nigeria. It stresses that jurisdictional requirements cannot be dispensed with lightly and promotes discipline in litigation practices.

In Summary, Okonjo – Iweila v. Fawehinmi galleries a nuanced balance between liberal access to courts for public enforcement and necessary judicial gatekeeping through locus standi. The case bolsters judicial authority, respect for procedural safeguards, and constitutionalism in Nigeria’s legal system.