Introduction;
The judiciary holds a critical position in the democratic governance framework of any nation, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution. In a country like Nigeria, where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, which shall afterward be regarded as CFRN, 1999), the judiciary plays an indispensable role in safeguarding constitutional democracy. The interpretation of the Constitution is often a complex process involving the balance of various principles, powers, and responsibilities, especially when disputes arise concerning the limits and scope of constitutional provisions.
One of the most significant roles the judiciary plays in this regard is clarifying the meaning and application of constitutional provisions, particularly in cases where conflicting interests are at stake. This judicial role has become even more pronounced in contemporary times, especially in cases involving federalism, human rights, and the autonomy of sub-national entities like local governments.
A recent case that highlights this role of the judiciary in constitutional interpretation is the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the matter of Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia and 35 Others SC/CV343/2024. This case revolves around the issue of local government autonomy, a subject that has sparked intense debate in Nigeria for several years. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter has far-reaching implications, not only for local government autonomy but also for the overall application of constitutional principles regarding the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states.
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation;
Section 6(1) and (2) of the CFRN, 1999, provide that the judicial powers in a Federation and State shall be vested in the courts established for the Federation and the State, respectively. In defining what is meant by “judicial power,” Nnaemeka Agu JSC in Senate v. Momoh (1984) 4 NCLR 269 described judicial power as the authority exercised by the department of government that is charged with the declaration of what the law is and its construction.
The judiciary’s function in the interpretation of the Constitution is crucial for several reasons. First, the Constitution serves as the foundational document of a country, outlining the structure of government, the distribution of powers, the protection of rights, and the principles upon which the nation is founded. However, like all legal texts, it is subject to various interpretations, and this is where the judiciary comes in.
Judicial interpretation ensures that the Constitution is applied consistently and fairly, providing clarity on areas that may be ambiguous, contested, or unclear. The judiciary also acts as a guardian of constitutionalism, ensuring that no arm of government oversteps its constitutional boundaries. The Nigerian Constitution contains provisions that require the delicate balancing of powers between the federal government and the states, which makes judicial intervention often necessary to resolve conflicts that arise from constitutional disputes.
There are two primary modes of constitutional interpretation: textual interpretation and purposeful interpretation. Textual interpretation focuses on the literal meaning of the Constitution’s provisions, while purposeful interpretation seeks to understand the intent or purpose behind a given provision. In Nigeria, the judiciary has relied on both approaches, often using a combination of the two to arrive at balanced and equitable decisions. While the court adopted a literal approach in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation (SC.22/1983), it adopted a liberal view in Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) CLR 6(A) (SC).
One of the most significant aspects of judicial interpretation is that it ensures the Constitution remains a living document, capable of responding to changing societal conditions. By applying constitutional principles to modern-day challenges, the judiciary helps maintain the relevance and applicability of constitutional provisions. See Okumagba v. Egbe (1964) LLJR-SC, Yusufu v. Obasanjo (2003) CLR 10(a) SC, and R. v. Eze (1950) NLR 110.
Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria;
Local government autonomy has long been a contentious issue in Nigeria’s federal system. Local governments are intended to be the closest form of government to the people, ensuring grassroots participation in governance and the delivery of essential services. However, local governments in Nigeria have often been subjected to the control and influence of state governors, with limited independence in decision-making and financial management.
The question of local government autonomy has been a central issue in Nigeria’s constitutional discourse. Over the years, the federal government has attempted to ensure greater financial and administrative independence for local governments, but state governors have generally resisted moves to enhance local government autonomy. This tension reached a peak with the passage of various constitutional amendments, which sought to grant local governments more financial independence and control over their affairs. Despite these efforts, state governments have continued to exercise significant control over the finances and administration of local governments, with many states failing to conduct local government elections as required by the Constitution. In this context, the judiciary’s role has become central in determining the extent of local government autonomy and the powers of both the federal and state governments in relation to local governments.
However, the prevalence of the consistent and fairly interpretation of the Constitution surfaces at the Supreme Court when the question as to whether or not the federal government can vividly pay the money standing to the credit of local government in the Federation account directly to local government councils in relation to the provisions of S. 162(5) and (6) of the CFRN,1999. The plaintiff argued that since the states have for decades persistently refused to pay to local government councils the money standing to their local governments in the Federation account in violation of S.162(4), (5) and (6) of the CFRN,1999, the Federation can validly paid the said money directly to their owners to protect the intention or objective of the Constitution from being defeated, that the governance of local government areas by states using appointees or officers of states such as local government caretaker committees, interim councils and administrators amounts to governing or taking control of the government of a local government area, a part of Nigeria, contrary to S.7(1) and therefore in violation of S.1(2), S. 162(4), (5) and (6) of the CFRN, 1999 which endangered the continued existence of the local government as a third tier of the federal governance structure, as most of them are now virtually extinct.
While the defendants taken together argued that the Federation cannot vividly pay the money directly to the local governments as to do so would be in violation of S.162(5) and (6) of the CFRN, 1999, that require it to be paid directly to the states for the benefit of local governments.
In response to the Defendants’ argument—presented by the Attorneys General of the States—that Section 162(5) of the Constitution mandates that funds from the Federation Account be paid to states for the benefit of Local Governments, the Court applied a purposeful interpretation of this provision. The Court reasoned that the fundamental aim of the law is to ensure that funds allocated to local governments reach them. By applying the mischief rule of interpretation, the Court considered historical constitutional provisions that allowed direct payments to local governments from the Federation Account. It also noted that the shift in practice, as seen in the current Constitution, was intended to address logistical challenges and reduce the costs associated with local government officials traveling to Abuja for fund collection.
The SC held, inter alia per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC, that “Just as the criteria for the interpretation of statutes differ between statutes according to the subject matter of each statute, the interpretation of statutes and other documents must be different from those for the interpretation of the Constitution because of its sui generis nature as the fundamental and Supreme law of the land, an organic document and a predominantly political document. Therefore, it must be interpreted in line with principles suitable to its spirit and character and not necessarily according to the general rules of interpretation of statutes and documents. One of the principles suitable to its sui generis is that it must be given a benevolent, broad, liberal and purposeful interpretation, and a narrow, strict, technical and legalistic interpretation must be avoided to promote its underlying policy and purpose. In interpreting the part of the Constitution providing the governance in a constitutionally established democratic culture, the Court must do so on the basis of principles that give the provision a meaning that promotes the values that underlie and are inherent characteristics of an open democratic society”.
The Court also emphasized the need for a balanced federal system where both the federal and state governments have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. In its judgment, the Court noted that the Constitution places an obligation on the federal government to ensure that local governments function effectively and that the actions of state governments that undermine local government autonomy are unconstitutional. One of the critical elements of the Court’s decision was the interpretation of the word “shall” in Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court interpreted this term as being mandatory rather than permissive and ruled that it imposes a legal duty on the states to ensure that local governments are established and maintained according to constitutional requirements. Additionally, the Court underscored that while the states have significant authority over local governments, they must do so within the framework set out by the Constitution, particularly in ensuring that local governments are elected, have financial independence, and are not subject to undue interference from state governors.
Implications of the Judgment;
The Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Abia and 35 Others has profound implications for Nigeria’s federal system and the future of local government autonomy. The ruling reinforces the principle that the Constitution guarantees local government autonomy and that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure compliance with these provisions. The judgment could lead to a more robust system of local governance, with local governments having greater control over their finances, administration, and electoral processes. This is likely to empower local governments to better serve the needs of the citizens they are meant to represent, leading to greater political participation and better service delivery at the grassroots level.
However, the decision also raises questions about the limits of federal power in relation to states. While the Court’s ruling appears to reaffirm the supremacy of the Constitution, it also highlights the delicate balance of power between federal and state authorities. The judgment may pave the way for further legal challenges, particularly from state governments that feel their autonomy is being unduly restricted by federal intervention.
Conclusion;
The role of the judiciary in the interpretation of the Constitution is central to the effective functioning of a democratic system. In Nigeria, where the Constitution is often subject to divergent interpretations, the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret and apply constitutional principles is of paramount importance. The Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Abia and 35 Others underscores this role and provides a critical example of how judicial intervention can clarify constitutional provisions, resolve disputes, and shape the future of governance.
Through this case, the judiciary has affirmed the constitutional mandate for local government autonomy, providing a significant legal precedent for future cases involving the relationship between federal and state governments. As Nigeria continues to grapple with issues of governance, federalism, and decentralization, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional principles remains as crucial as ever. The ruling in this case offers a roadmap for ensuring that the constitutional provisions regarding local government autonomy are respected and upheld, contributing to a more effective and accountable system of governance at all levels.
References;
1. Akinola Oladimeji, ‘LG Financial Autonomy: What the Supreme Court held in AG Federation v AG Abia State & Ors. SC/CV/343/2024’ https://barristemg.com/lg-financial-autonomy-what-the supreme-court-held-in-ag-federation-v-ag-abia-state-ors-sc-cv-343-2024-by-akinola-oladimeji/ last assessed 8 August 2024.
2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the fifth Alteration Act)
3. Dr. Bibobra Bello Orubebe ; Judicial Interpretation of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the Danger Signals of Unexpected Outcomes in 2015 Judicial Review of Election Disputes: Amaichi v. INEC Revisited
4. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa: Role of the judiciary in the development of democracy.
5. Ese Malemi; The Nigerian Constitutional Law.
6. Hakeem olasunkanmi ijaya; Judicial approach to interpretation of constitution.
7. https://ao2law.com/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-attorney-general-of-the-federation-and-attorney-general-of-abia-state-35-others-appraising-the-fiscal-implications-of-local-government-autonomy/
8. https://www.learnnigerianlaw.com/learn/legal-system/interpretation
9. Josephine Nkeonye Egemonu; Role of The Judiciary in Promoting Access to Justice in Nigeria.
10. Patrick chinedu; An examination of the Role of the Judiciary in Law making in Nigeria by Eboh,
By;
TIJANI AHMAD ADEBAYO, A law student from the University of Ilorin.
Gmail; hbahyour@gmail.com
