LAKANMI & ANOR. V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WEST) & ORS
| Pages | 143-164 |
LAKANMI & ANOR. V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WEST) & ORS.
143
LAKANMI & ANOR. V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(WEST) & ORS.
1. E.O. LAKANMI
2. KIKELOMO OLA
(by her guardian
and next friend E.O. Lakanmi)
APPELLANTS
V
1.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WEST)
2.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TRIBUNAL
3.
THE COUNSEL TO THE TRIBUNAL
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO.SC 58/69
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ADEMOLA,
C.J.N.
COKER,
J.S.C.
LEWIS,
J.S.C.
MADARIKAN,
J.S.C.
UDOMA,
J.S.C.
24th April, 1970.
Constitutional Law - Constitution - Assets, investigation of - Federal Military
Government Decree on investigation of Assets of Public Officers - Subsequent
state edict on the same subject matter - Validity of the Edict - Doctrine of
"covering the field" considered - Accordance of Edict with doctrine - Army
Rebellion - Hand over of the administration of the Country by Council of
Ministers - Suspension of certain sections of the Constitution by Military -
Federal Military Government, a revolutionary Government or an interim
Government of necessity - Doctrine of necessity considered - Inconsistency
between Decree and Constitution - Decree ousting jurisdiction of courts and
confiscating assets of named persons in a schedule thereto - Validity of
the Decree - Decrees Nos. 1 of 1966 and 45 of 1968; constitution of Nigeria,
1963. Certiorari - Determination of Assets Tribunal - Application to quash
decision - Error going to validity of Decree and edict rendering Tribunal's
decision
a
nullity - Edict No. 5 of 1967 (Western State) - Decree No. 45 of
1968.
ISSUES:
1. What is the effect of a state enactment which covers the same subject matter as
a federal enactment.
45
2. Whether the Federal Military Government in 1966 was a Revolutionary
Government or an interim Government of necessity.
3. Whether the Federal Military Government that seized power in 1966 governed
Nigeria by Decrees only or by both the Constitution and Decrees.
4. Whether Decrees Nos. 1 of 1966 and 45 of 1968 amounted to a usurpation of
50
Judicial Powers and were therefore inconsistent with the Republican
Constitution of 1963.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
144
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1970j N.S.C.C.
FACTS:
A Tribunal of Inquiry instituted by the Western State Military Government to in-
vestigate the Assets of public officers of the State made an order forfeiting the as-
sets of the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs/appellants moved the High Court,
Ibadan for an order of
certiorari
to quash the order contending that Edict No. 5 of
5
1967 under which the order was made was void since it purported to operate in
the same field as the Federal Military Government Decree No. 51 of 1966 which in
fact had covered the whole field and also that some sections of the Edict were in
conflict with the provisions of the Decree. The respondents admitted the incon-
sistencies but argued that at the time the Edict was enacted the Decree had no
10
force as a Decree in the State. The High Court dismissed the application and held
that the Edict was validity made and since it ousted the jurisdiction of the court, the
validly or otherwise of the order could not be challenged. The appellants appealed
to
-
che Western State Court of Appeal.
While the appeal was still pending the Federal Military Government enacted
15
three successive Decrees namely: the Investigation of Assets (Public Officers and
other Persons) Decree No.37 of 1968 which repealed Decree No. 51 of 1966 and
Edict No. 5 of 1967 but preserved the order made against the appellants under the
Edict; the Investigation of Assets (Public Officers and other Persons) (Amendment)
Decree No. 43 of 1968; the Forfeiture of Assets, etc. (Validation) Decree No. 45
20
of 1968 which not only ousted the jurisdiction of the courts generally but referred
specifically to the names of the appellants in its schedule as the officers whose
forfeiture orders however made were validated. At the hearing, the Court of Ap-
peal upheld the validity of Decree No. 45 of 1968 and declared itself without juris-
diction to hear the appeal.
25
On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants submitted that the
Federal Military Government was not a revolutionary government but a Constitu-
tional Interim Government; which came into being by the wishes of the repre-
sentatives of the people and whose object was to uphold the Constitution excepting
in so far as it had to derogate from it under the doctrine of necessity whereby it
30
was granted power; that the Federal Military Government assumed the continued
existence of the Constitution and a Decree prevailed over the Constitution only to
the extent that the Decree, if validly made, could amend the Constitution; that the
order of the Assets Tribunal was not validly made and since Decree No. 45 of 1968
sought to validate it, the Decree was a usurpation of judicial power as it deprived
35
the appellants of their properties without compensation by a legislative act.
The respondents maintained that the Federal Military Government was a revol-
utionary Government which seized power in 1966 and therefore had unfettered
right to rule by force and by means of Decrees and nothing in the Republican Con-
stitution of 1963 could make a decree void; that once a Decree was signed by the
40
Head of the Federal Military Government, it could not be challenged and no court
had jurisdiction to adjudicate on its validity; that the doctrine of necessity as pro-
pounded by the appellants did not therefore arise.
For the court to determine the validity of Decree No. 45 of 1968, it examined
in detail the events in the country from January, 1966 and how the Federal Military
45
Government came into being and the doctrine of necessity and
-
HELD:
1. That since the Federal Military Government as the Supreme legislative body
had by Decree No.51 of 1966 enacted what was the law covering the
investigation of assets of public officers which was operative through out the
50
country, any State enactment such as Edict No. 5 of 1967 on the same subject
matter was
ultra vires
and void under the doctrine of covering the field.
To continue reading
Request your trial