OLAWOYIN & ORS V. C.O.P

• Pages: 261-264

OLAWOYIN & ORS V. C.O.P.



261

Answer to question (1):-

The Commissions and Tribunals of Enquiry Act, 1961, is not within the com-

petence of the legislative pc:wer of the Federal Parliament in so far as the

said Act purports to have effect in relation to matters and things within

5



Federal competence anywhere within the Federation.

Answer to question (2):-

Section 3(4) of the said Act is void.

Answer to question (3):-

Section 8(c) is valid. Sections 8(d), 15(a) and 18(1)(b) are void to the ex-

10



tent that they empower the Commissioners to impose a sentence of fine or

imprisonment.

15



OLAWOYIN & ORS V. C. &

P.

J.S. OLAWOYIN AND OTHERS

20

COMMISSONER OF POLICE

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

25



MBANEFO,



C.J.E.R.

BRETT,



F.J.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

27th October, 1961.

APPLICANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 327/1961

30



Constitutional Law - Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1960, Second Schedule

Constitution of the Federation, section 108(2) - Reference to Federal Supreme

Court - Questions of application - Not referable under section 108(2) - Referred

question - Refraining of question into a different or additional question - Not

allowed by Supreme Court.

35

Words and Phrases - "Substantial question of Law".

ISSUES:

1.

Whether questions on the application of and the interpretation of the Constitution

40



are referable to the Supreme Court under section 108(2) of the Constitution.

2.

Whether the Supreme Court ha.s power to allow questions to be reframed so

as to turn them into different or additional questions.

3.

What guidelines are to be followed in determing whether a question involves a

substantial question of law.

45 FACTS:

The Appellants appealed to the High Court from convictions of certain offen-

ces, contending that the refusal by the trial court to give them an opportunity to fur-

ther examine prosecution witnesses amounted, in the circumstances, to a violation

of their constitutional right to a fair trial. The High Court, at their request, referred

50



two questions to the Federal Supreme Court under section 108 of the Constitution

of the Federation. The questions set out the circumstances under which the Ap-

pellants contended that their right to a fair trial had been violated, and prayed the

Supreme Court to decide whether the Constitutional guarantees of a fair trial, pro-

vided for by sections 21(2), 21(4) and 21(5)(b) of the Constitution of the Feder-