By Sylvester Udemezue

For the avoidance of doubts, this commentary is strictly a LEGAL OPINION having nothing whatsoever to do with the activities of Nigerian politicians and their supporters and acolytes even as the 2023 general elections are just a fortnight away from today. I have earlier offered my humble, disinterested opinion on the Naira Redesign and Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit policies of the Central Bank of Nigeria. See: “Re: “Give Me 7 Days To Resolve Cash Crunch, President Muhammadu Buhari Begs Nigerians” by Sylvester Udemezue (4 February 2024, ThenigeriaLawyer)

Issues relating to whether or not a court of law has jurisdiction are fundamental and lack of jurisdiction is fatal. See OTUKPO v. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR (669) 507; BRONIK MOTORS v. WEMA BANK (1983)6 S.C. 158; see also OMOKHAFE v. Military Administrator (2005) 2 MJSC 173. In the Supreme Court case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 589, the Supreme Court provided the following guide for determining whether a court has jurisdiction. Hon Justice Vahe Bairamian (FJ) while delivering the lead judgment in that case stated as follows: “Put briefly, a court is competent when: (1) the court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction: and (3) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.” (See: http://www.nigerialaw.org/LawReporting/1962/Gabriel%20Madukolu%20&%20Ors%20v%20Johnson%20Nkemdilim.htm)

Now, in October 2022, the Central Bank of Nigeria rolled out the Naira Redesign and Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit policies, announcing 31 January 2023 as the deadline for use of old Naira Notes (N1,000, N500, and N200 notes) in Nigeria. The deadline was however later extended to 10 February 2023. Meanwhile, Kaduna, Zamfara, and Kogi States filed a case at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, against the Attorney-General of the Federation, challenging the polices and asking the Supreme Court to restrain the federal government from enforcing the 10 February 2023 deadline on Naira swap. The Supreme Court has granted an ex parte order directing that the new naira notes and the old ones should continue to coexist until 15 February 2023 when the Motion on Notice in the case would be heard. My worry is, does the Supreme Court of Nigeria have jurisdiction in this matter? I respectfully answer the question in the negative, with due respect, for the following reasons:

1️⃣. The Naira Redesign and Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit policies are policies of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction in disputes arising from or related to Central Bank policies and anything having to do with the Naira as the Legal Tender in Nigeria. Section 251(1)(d) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides: “Notwithstanding anything to the contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters — connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, LEGAL TENDER , bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures…”. Thus, it is submitted that the proper court to have filed the case is the Federal High Court and not the Supreme Court. Besides, it’s submitted, the proper party to sue is the CBN and the proper court to file the case is the Federal High Court.

2️⃣.Section 232 (1)(a) of the Constitution, 1999, provides that “The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.” In line with this section, there must be a live dispute between the Federation and a State or between two States, before the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be activated. It’s submitted that in the present scenario, there is no dispute between the Federation and any of Kaduna/Zamfara/Kogi States over the Naira Redesign and Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit policies. These policies are policies of the Central Bank; the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction has no business with the case. And if any State in Nigeria has any problems with the deadline fixed by the CBN, the state is free to drag the CBN before the Federal High Court. After all, the CBN is not immune from Civil actions; section 1(2) of the CBN Act provides that the CBN may sue or be sued. In my opinion, one major problem is that it appears some people are used to confusing the term FEDERATION with FEDERAL GOVERNMENT or the office of the President. In AG KANO V. AG FEDERATION (2007) 3 SC (PT 1) the Supreme Court explained that ‘The word “Federation” in section 232 of the 1999 Constitution bears the same meaning as “Federal Republic of Nigeria” or “Federation of Nigeria”. The plaintiff’s claim did not accuse the Federation of Nigeria or the Federal Republic of Nigeria of taking any action against the Hisbah Law of Kano State or the operation of the Hisbah Corps in Kano State; or of arresting and detaining commanders of the Hisbah Corps in Kano State. There was no dispute between Kano State in its status as a component unit of the Federation and the unit of the Federation itself’. Per Mohammed, JSC at 38

With due respect to the AG’s of Kaduna State, et al, the Attorney-General of the Federation is the proper Defendant or plaintiff only in suits against or by the Federation; a quarrel over the action of the CBN in respect of the LEGAL TENDER does not qualify as or translate to a dispute between a state and the Federation as provided for in section 232(1) of the Constitution, to justify the filing of the case at the Supreme Court. In the same A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (supra), the Attorney-General of Kano State had dragged the AG of the Federation to the Supreme Court over an action taken by the Inspector-General of Police, and Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was) held, while dealing with the … provisions of Section 232(1) in the lead judgment that: “Any complaints against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector-General of Police as asserted by the learned senior for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, are completely outside the jurisdiction of this Court.” Continuing, the apex court said: “The statement of claim disclosed a dispute between the Government of Kano State and its agencies and the Government of the Federation through the Inspector-General of Police and Minister of Information, exercising their power or authority on behalf of the government of the Federation. The venue for settlement of such disputes (i.e. against Inspector-General of Police and Minister of Information), was in the various courts of first instance whose jurisdictions were clearly outlined in the same 1999 Constitution – and not the Supreme Court”. Per Mohammed, JSC at 38.

Also, in the case of BHS INTL LTD v. AG LAGOS & ORS (2016) LPELR-40084, the Court discussed (set out) the Conditions that must exist before the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court can be invoked. The Court States:
“Section 232 (1) of the Constitution are concisely and precisely in the following terms: “The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.” I must state that these provisions, in addition to being concise and precise, are plain, clear and unambiguous in words, context and purport. That is the verdict of the apex Court, per Onnoghen, JSC in the lead judgment in the case of A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation (supra) also reported in (2007) 2 SC, 146, when he stated that: “The provisions of Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which confers original jurisdiction on this Court, is very clear and unambiguous. It is clear from the above that for the original jurisdiction of this Court to be invoked in a civil action; (a) the action must be between the Federation and the State(s) or between States, and there must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or States; (b) the dispute must involve a question of law or fact or both; and (c) the dispute must pertain to the existence or extent of a legal right.” The erudity and proficient Lawlord did not stop there, but defined what a “dispute” is in the context of the provisions when he said: “It has been held by this Court vide Belgore, JSC (as he then was) in A.G. of the Federation v A.G. of Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR (PT.725) 689 at 737, inter alia, that the term dispute as used in Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution”…, involves acts of argument, controversy, debate, claims as to rights whether in law or facts, verying opinion, whether passive or violent of any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet” Then in the case of A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 3 SC (PT 1) 59, Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was) had held, while dealing with the same provisions of Section 232(1) in the lead judgment that:”Any complaints against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector-General of Police as asserted by the learned senior for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, are completely outside the jurisdiction of this Court.”His lordship had expatiated the above position when he said; “However, quite contrary to the requirements of Sections 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the dispute disclosed in the plaintiff’s statement of claim is a dispute between the Government of Kano State and its agencies and the Government of the Federal and its agencies, particularly the police and the Federal Ministry of Information through the Inspector General of Police and the Minister of Information in their capacities as persons exercising power or authority on behalf of the Government of the Federation …. certainly if the plaintiff has any dispute with the Inspector General of Police and the Minister of Information for their respective roles in the various declarations they made on the Hisbah Laws, the operation of the Hisbah Corps and the arrest and detention of the officials of the Hisbah Corps, the propervenue for the settlement of such dispute does not lie in invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court. The venue for the settlement of such dispute lies elsewhere in various Courts of first instance whose original jurisdictions are clearly outlined in the same 1999 Constitution”The clear principle laid down in the above authorities is that the original jurisdiction of the apex Court under Section 232(1) cannot be invoked over a dispute in respect of the acts or performance of the duties of the Federal Govt through or by its agencies, which are legal entities that can sue or be sued, since they are not the Federation or a State in the Federation.” Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JCA (Pp 27 – 30 Paras B – D).

3️⃣. Another question is whether the ex parte order made by the Supreme Court of Nigeria is binding on the Central Bank of Nigeria or on any of the Commercial Banks in Nigeria in view of the fact that neither the Central Bank nor the Commercial Banks are a party to the case at the Supreme Court?
It is a settled principle of law that an order of court binds only parties to the case before the court. It’s a principle of joinder of parties. Thus, if a person is not joined that person is deemed to not be a party to the case and is therefore not bound by any order made in the case or the outcome of the case. See BABATOLA V ALADEJANA (2001) 6 SC 124. Section 1(3) or the Central Bank Act, 2007 provides that the Central Bank of Nigeria “is an independent body in the discharge of its functions”. Further,
Section 17 of the CBN Act provides that “The Bank shall have the sole right of issuing currency notes and coins throughout Nigeria and neither the Federal Government nor any State Government, Local Government other person or authority shall issue currency notes, bank notes or coins or any documents or token payable to bearer on demand being document or token which are likely to pass as legal tender”. Section 19(1) (b) provides that “The currency notes and coins issued by the Bank shall be of such forms and designs and bear such devices as shall be approved by the President on the recommendation of the Board”. Section 20(1) of the CBN Act provides that “The currency notes issued by the Bank shall be the legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount”. Section 20(3) of the CBN Act provides that “….the bank shall have power, if so directed by the President and after giving reasonable notice in that behalf, to call in any of its notes or coins on payment of the face value thereof and any note or coins with respect to which a notice has been given under this subsection shall, on the expiration of the notice, cease to be the legal tender, but subject to section 22 of this Act, shall be redeemed by the Bank upon demand”. From the above it appears that the CBN has the responsibility and power to issue a legal Tender for Nigeria and to redesign any denomination of the legal Tender. Also, fixing of deadline for cessation of validity of the old Naira notes are issues falling within the sole powers of the CBN under the President’s directive pursuant to Sections 19(1)(b) and 20(3) of the CBN Act. Accordingly, I am surprised that anyone who has a complaint or grievance in respect of either the redesign of the legal tender by the CBN could commence such a case at the Supreme Court. Section 25(1)(d) of the Constitution doesn’t mince words that every dispute arising from or related to the Legal Tender, including naira redesign and phasing out, must be commenced at the Federal High Court. Besides, the CBN is a necessary party to such a suit. Further, the declaration of the Supreme Court in AG KANO V AG FEDERATION (supra) leaves no one in doubt: the Hon AGF has no business whatsoever with the suit. And to this end, two major suggestions are made:
?️. While the CBN is a necessary party to the suit, actions cannot be commenced or maintained against the CBN at the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its original jurisdiction. Perhaps, this is why the Plaintiffs carefully avoided joining the CBN, an essential party to the suit. But then in leaving the CBN out, the Plaintiffs still fell into a grave error of dragging to the supreme court, a suit legally suitable for only the Federal High Court. In AG Kano v AG FEDERATION (supra), the Supreme Court clarified that “The relief claimed by the plaintiff was against the Inspector-General of Police who was not subject to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of that Court could not be invoked in the absence of a justiciable dispute between the parties and where the defendant was not the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Per Mohammed, JSC at 38. A combined reading of sections 17 to 20 of the CBN Act appears to suggest that the job of Naira Redesign, and fixing a deadline when old Naira notes would cease to be legal tender, is the business of the CBN, even if the deadline is fixed BY THE CBN under a directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. CBN is accordingly a necessary party to any dispute arising from any such issues.

?️. Aside from the CBN which is an essential party to the suit, the only other person who may be properly joined to the suit is the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, considering his role as set out in section 20(3) of the CBN Act (supra). Luckily, the office of the president is a Corporation Sole capable of suing and being sued in its official capacity in a Court of law, subject to section 308 of the Constitution. Section 308(2) provides: “The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party”.

There appears to be no provision in any extant law in Nigeria authorising or permitting any State in Nigeria to commence any action against the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria at the Supreme Court. Actions against the office of the president may only be commenced at the Supreme Court by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by virtue of section 1 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002, made pursuant to the Constitution, which creates three additional instances in which an action may be commenced at the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction: (i) dispute between the National Assembly and the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; (ii) dispute between the National Assembly and a State; and (iii) dispute between the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly in Nigeria. In view of the aforesaid, the only forum at which an action may be maintained against the President of Nigeria in his official capacity is at the Federal High Court, the NICN or a State High Court, dependent on the circumstances. Thus, with regard to the present scenario, if Kaduna State et al have any grievance against Mr President in respect of his role in CBN’s redesignation or swap of the legal tender (the naira), the proper forum is the Federal High Court and not the Supreme Court. Interestingly, in their bid to institute the case at the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs (Kaduna, Zamfara and Kogi States) carefully excluded the President and instead went for the Hon AGF. Unfortunately for them, while a state is entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court against the AGF, there is a mandatory condition precedent to a State dragging the Hon AGF before the Supreme Court: there must be a live dispute between the affected State and the Federation. In my opinion, if any dispute or grievance exists at all in the present scenario, it is an alleged grievance by Kaduna, Zamfara and Kogi States against the CBN in respect of the latter’s Redesign of the legal tender (pursuant to Section 19(1)(b) CBN Act) or in respect of the CBN fixing of a deadline (February 10, 2023) beyond which the old Naira notes would cease to be legal tender (pursuant to Section 20(3) CBN Act).

It appears that from whatever standpoint one looks at this matter, one would hardly deny that the current scenario revolves around Naira as Nigeria’s legal tender; thus any dispute arising therefrom is fitting but only for the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution. Happily, Kaduna, Zamfara and Kogi States have the opportunity of validly maintaining an action against the principal actor in this scenario (the Central Bank of Nigeria), and (even if the Plaintiffs decide to join him) the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, at the Federal High Court, for purposes of ventilating their grievances, whatever their grievances are. In other words, it’s not as if the Plaintiffs in this scenario were/are legally hamstrung or otherwise frustrated regarding finding the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances. It is just that, as it appears, they chose to avoid the Federal High Court which is the court with exclusive original jurisdiction by virtue of section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution, and also completely left out the CBN which is the principal actor in this scenario looking at sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the CBN Act.

One more interesting thing to note, especially with respect to the present scenario is that the plaintiffs appear to have completely also forgotten that section 251(1) of the Constitution is superior to any and all other provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria even in the case of conflict (save where the constitution itself otherwise expressly provides). Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution begins with the expression “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution….” thus asserting its superiority over all other sections of the Constitution in respect of any dispute regarding or arising from anything revolving around the Naira as Nigeria’s legal tender. Finally, the plaintiffs completely forgot the legal implications of failure to join the necessary parties to a civil action such as this one.

Now, a respected learned friend has suggested that “… federal government is giving directives every now and then on this naira issue. With that, it cannot be limited to s. 251 alone anymore. The three states are in order for maintaining an action against the conduit or remote behind Emefiele”. My humble response to this view is that the Inspector-General of Police, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief Of Army Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff, the Nigerian Immigration, the Civil Defense Corps, the NYSC and countless other institutions are Federal agencies and institutions who/which from time to time, in the course of performance of their constitutional/lawful duties and responsibilities, also take “directives’ from the President. In 2017, the Nigerian Army on the directives of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria launched Operation Python Dance in Southeast Nigeria; Operation Crocodile Smiles in South-south and Southwest. Recently, the Nigerian Military launched “Exercise Still Water” in Lagos pursuant to which the soldiers have been raiding notorious spots in Lagos with a view to routing out hoodlums and other social miscreants. See: “Army Arrests 116 Suspects In Ongoing Lagos Operation” (Daily Post; 31 January 2023). Now, is my learned friend saying that, say with respect to the last example (Exercise Still Water), if Lagos State feels aggrieved by the action taken by any of the military (in arresting these suspected miscreants) pursuant to Operating Exercise Still Water, the Lagos State, instead of dragging the Nigerian Military before the Federal High Court, would be legally right to sue the Attorney-General at the Supreme Court over the activities of the Nigerian Military during Exercise Still Water? In view of the supreme court decision in AG KANO V AG FEDERATION (supra), would the Nigerian Supreme Court have jurisdiction in such a matter? If we agree that the Nigerian Supreme Court wouldn’t have jurisdiction thereon, how does my learned friend think that the apex court could have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from actions of the CBN pursuant to its powers under the CBN Act, simply because the law says CBN should act under the President’s directive in some cases? Recall the facts of AG KANO V AG FEDERATION (supra): Kano State Attorney-General had dragged the Federation (through the Hon AGF) to the Supreme Court over Kano State’s displeasure with an action taken by the Inspector-General of Police in Kano State Hisbah Corps and the Supreme held it had NO ORIGINAL jurisdiction in the matter. Now, if as rightly held by the Supreme Court, a State cannot sue the AGF/the Federation at the Supreme Court over the actions of the NIGERIAN military or Police (even if these institutions in taking such actions, acted on the President’s directive), how would anyone suggest that a State could sue the Federation (through the Hon AGF) at the Supreme Court in respect of an action taken by the CBN, an institution expressly declared by the CBN Act to be an independent institution? And who tells my learned friend that the jurisdiction the Supreme Court lacks in this case could be donated to it by Kaduna State et al pretending to sue the Federation (through the Attorney-General of the Federation) over a matter in which the Hon AGF is not legally a proper party? And finally, to think of the present scenario which revolves wholly around the legal tender in respect of which section 251(1) (d) has expressly said that only the Federal High Court could have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in Nigeria, two important questions immediately arise here:)

(A). Can a State in Nigeria maintain a civil action against the CBN at the Federal High Court over the Naira Redesign, Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit or in respect of the deadline set by the CBN for old Naira notes to cease to be legal tender? Answer is yes. See s. 251(1)(d).

(B). Can a State maintain a civil action at the Federal High Court against the President of Nigeria in his official capacity over the deadline set by the CBN pursuant to the President’s directive in line with section 20(2) of the CBN Act? Answer is yes, from all I’ve explained with relevant legal authorities, above.

One then wonders why the plaintiffs proceeded to a court without jurisdiction as against the Court that has jurisdiction and which even affords the plaintiffs the opportunity of joining all necessary parties [(1) the CBN, and probably (2) the President] so that the matter and all issues surrounding it could be exhaustively and justly determined with finality? This is a question for the plaintiffs to answer.

CONCLUSION

Without prejudice to whatever their Lordships of the Supreme Court may choose to decide in the present case, (because their decision is supreme/final), I respectfully submit, based on the above provisions, explanations and the reasons I have given, that the Supreme Court of Nigeria does not have ORIGINAL jurisdiction to hear or entertain the suits filed at the Supreme Court by Kaduna, Zamfara, Kogi and any other State or States over the Naira Redesign and Daily Cash Withdrawal Limit policies recently announced by the CBN or in respect of the deadline of 10 February set by the Central Bank of Nigeria pursuant to Section 20(3) of the CBN Act, 2007 for old Naira notes to cease to be legal tender in Nigeria. It’s respectfully further submitted that except where otherwise expressly stated in the Constitution, section 251(1)(d) (which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in all and any matters relating to the Naira as the Legal Tender of Nigeria) is superior to all other sections of the Constitution, including section 232 which provides for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, although there appears to be no conflict between section 251(1)(d) and section 232 of the Constitution.

Well, for the avoidance of doubts, I repeat that mine is a mere opinion, respectfully and disinterestedly offered, without prejudice to the wisdom of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which has the final say in this matter. The Supreme Court is a court of law, possessing appellate, original and supervisory jurisdictions. It has also been described as a court of policy. I respect their Lordships; and we are bound by their decisions. The ball is now in their lordships’ court, to do justice to this scenario case, according to law. I hope and pray that the apex Court would live up to the reasonable expectations of all right-thinking members of the watching public. While we await the decision of the Court on this matter, it is important to respectfully urge all parties and stakeholders, including the CBN, to endeavour to respect the rule of law and due process by conducting themselves responsibly and honorably pending the decision of the Supreme Court one way or the other. To this end, I humbly recall the following cases and declarations:

(1) In WHYTE V KWANDE (APPEAL NO.CA/PH/161/99), a judgment delivered on January 4, 2007 by the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division, His Lordship, IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JCA said: “I should have thought that fairness, even handedness and above all respect for rule of law would characterize the behaviour and standards of such men who found themselves in public offices”

(2). In AMAECHI V. INEC & 2 ors (2008) 1 SCNJ 1; (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227, the Supreme Court of Nigeria (per PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JSC) in clear terms voiced its anger against lawlessness of any kind:
“The decision to substitute Celestine Omehia for Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi by the 3rd Respondent (P.D.P) during the period of pending gubernatorial election represents a display of very grave display of political rascality and an irresponsible and wanton disrespect for rule of law. No responsible person or group of persons who parade themselves as having respect for rule of law and due process, can be credited with such a dastardly act. The 1st Respondent, by acceding to the request of the 3rd Respondent for the substitution, has painted a picture of itself as a spineless body whose pre-occupation is dissemination of injustice. It (1st Respondent) has forgotten or it has thrown into the winds the position carved for it by the Constitution of the land -An unbiased umpire. Finally, on this point, I wish to say that in all countries of the world which operate under the rule of law, politics are always adapted to the laws of the land and not the laws to politics. Let our political operators allow this time-honoured principle to sink well into their heads and hearts.”

(3). In MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE VS. OJUKWU (2001) FWLR (Part 50) 1779 at 1802 & 1799, the Supreme court stressed that “the Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. Nigeria, being one of the countries in the world which profess loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no room for the rule of self help by force to operate.”

May God help Nigeria!
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08109024556.
[email protected].
(10 February 2023)