By Isah Bala Garba

Nigeria as a country operating a democratic system of government, having a constitution as its grundnorm. This constitution comprises seven chapters with Chapter Two (Fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy) generally known to be non-justiciable.

Before I proceed, it’s vital to define what a constitution is.

A constitution simply means a document that outlines how a state is to be governed. Therefore, the objectives and principles are as outlined in chapter two of Nigerian Constitution which include political, economic, social, educational, foreign policy, environment objectives, cultural, media, national ethnic including security and duties of citizens from section 13 to 24.

These objectives and principles are like signposts, which point out to the Government the direction that its policies should follow. However, these fundamental objectives and directive principles are said to be merely moral codes and cosmetic in nature.

Section 6 of the Constitution vests judicial powers on the courts, with section 6(6)(c), explicitly ousting the power of the court on matters therein contained in the said chapter, the Subsection goes: ‘Judicial powers shall not, ‘EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question 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 of this Constitution. [Capitalization is mine; for emphasis]’

However, this ouster clause to the justiciability of fundamental objectives is not absolute, as the ‘Except as otherwise’ therein the subsection gives a potential leeway if other section provides for it, it will be so interpreted by the court, to ensure that no part of the constitution becomes merely ludicrous.

The Supreme Court had held in the case of Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR

that: ‘…a particular Section or Sections of the Directive Principles becomes justiciable once the National Assembly enacts a law to make it enforceable.’ For instance, Item 60 paragraph (a) under second schedule of the exclusive legislative list gives the federal government the power to establish authorities for the federation or any part thereof to ‘(a) promote and enforce the observance of these objectives and principles.’

By the virtue of the above provision the national assembly can make an act which will make the fundamental objectives be justiciable.

Furthermore, Acts such as ‘Corrupt Practices and Related Offences Act, 2000. Which in it section 9(1) and 9(3) serve as an operation mechanism in making section 15(5) under chapter 2 which states: ‘The state shall abolish all corrupt practices’ justiciable, as such anyone guilty of misuse or abuse of power can be tried in the court of law. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Pollution Watch v. N.N.P.C (2019) 5 NWLR, section 20 under the said chapter 2 was deemed justiciable concerning environment protection so as to avoid further calamity to the health and life of the Isukwuato Local Government Area of Abia State people.

In addition, the Federal High court Abuja in the case of Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP) GTE & LTD v Federal Ministry of Education & Another with suit number (FHC/ABJ/CS/978/15) [2017] Having been guided by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in A G., Ondo State v. AG., Fed. Fed.(2002) 9 NWLR held that, by the enactment of the Compulsory, Free Universal Basic Education Act, 2004, by the National Assembly section (2) of the said Act covering Education from the primary to Junior secondary school as free have become justiciable.

In conclusion, although the chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is expressly declared to be non-justiciable by virtue of section 6 (6)(c) of the CFRN, 1999 (as amended), courts do not remain adamant but have shown flexibility in interpretation by consideration the other constitutional provisions and the surrounding circumstances of the matter. It is therefore safe to conclude by adopting the words of Niki Tobi, JSC (As he then was).

In the light of the above, I reject the argument that the provision of chapter 2 are non-justiciable by virtue of section 6 (6) (c) of the constitution. I am in total agreement that the provisions could be justiciable,

By the above authority of the Supreme Court and several other authorities showcased in this article, I strongly hold the view that the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy are both non-justiciable and justiciable, depending on the circumstance.

Isah Bala Garba is a level 200 student from Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached for comments or corrections on: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/isah-bala-garba-301983276 [email protected] or on 08100129131