decision in Abacha v Fawehinmi, in which the Nigerian Supreme Court held that the African Charter cannot be superior to the Constitution and upheld. Download Citation on ResearchGate | GANI FAWEHINMI V. GENERAL SANI ABACHA AND OTHERS: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR. General Sanni Abacha v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Supreme Court, 28 April General Sanni Abacha, Attorney-General of the Federation, State Security .

Author: Turamar Yozshuzil
Country: Algeria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 17 January 2015
Pages: 477
PDF File Size: 11.84 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.20 Mb
ISBN: 273-6-14571-951-7
Downloads: 43557
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dataxe

In the second place, it is crystal clear that whereas the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which deals with fundamental human rights were expressly suspended for the purposes of the State Security Detention of Persons Act by Section 4 thereof, the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act,Cap.

A uetention order, at best, is a public document. Learned cross-appellant contends that the court is competent to compel the donee of a detention order to disclose the reasons behind his conclusion that a particular person, e.

African Charter with a greater vigor and strength than mere decree for it has been elevated to a higher pedestal. For ease of reference. Privacy Policy Terms of Service. II ofthe Inspector General of Police is competent to issue and sign a detention order and whether if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, he can be compelled to disclose the reasons for issuing same.

The Chief of General Staff or the Inspector General of Police, as the case may be, shall not later than three months after the date of an order made by him under this Decree and every three months thereafter, review the case of every person, detained pursuant to the order and, if satisfied that the circumstances no longer require the continued detention of the person affected, may revoke the order.

While rejecting the cross-appellant’s submission of the Chief of General Staff being nonexistent under the amendment of Decree No. Chinese Exclusive Case US. Section 5 of Decree No, of states as follows “No question as to the validity of this Decree or any other Decree.

In the final analysis and from the foregoing, the main appeal lacks merit and fails; the same is dismissed. On Friday, abaca 28th faaehinmi of April, It is his further submission, relying on Vickers, Sons of Maxim Ltd.


Case Abacha v. Fawehinmi

The Constitution is the primary law 0[‘ the land. State supra as good authority for enforcing the provisions of African Charter by the procedure set out under section 4 of the Constitution as the cross-appellant did in the case under review.

The convention was based aabacha draft articles proposed by the International Commission and was adopted at the Vienna Conference. Principles of Public International Law, p. The Chief of General Staff or the Inspector-General of Police, as the case may be, shall not later than three months after the date of an order made by him under this Decree and every three month thereafter, review the case of every person, detained fawdhinmi to the order and, if satisfied that the circumstances no longer require the continued detention of the person affected, may revoke the order.

At the oral hearing, Mr. I I of give the Inspector-General of Police a free and unfettered power to reach his conclusion, relying on such data and information that he may deem fit in being satisfied that any particular person’s act is prejudicial to state security. See page – of the record. In the result, guided by the foregoing, I am clearly of the view that the trial court was in error to have taken judicial notice of the abxcha order. The erosion may be creating Military or Special Tribunals ….

Power of Inspector-General to sign and issue a detention order. It became apparent by reason of the promulgation of Decree No. To counsel, Decree No. This much, the cross-appellant’s counsel readily concedes fawehinni his brief of argument.

Learned counsel further submits that the analogy of surrender of parliamentary supremacy by British Parliament by virtue of the effect of European CulI1munity Act, is misconceived as it relates to the Nigerian situation which is not a member of qbacha European Community Union where, to fswehinmi extent in respect of certain specific matters, sovereignty lies with the Union.

C and I am in complete agreement that while the main appeal is devoid of substance and must therefore fail, the cross appeal is clearly meritorious and ought to be allowed.

The respondent being dissatisfied with parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, as cross-appellant, has appealed against the same on five grounds of appeal and also submits four abacna issues for our determination.


Clearly, it is not open to the court to take judicial notice of such a document in the absence of any law authorising such approach. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted quite correctly that a treaty between two or more sovereign states derives its binding force and effect from international law.

Then came when another amendment was abacna to the Decree. Their true nature is more of pieces of subsidiary legislation enacted under State Fawejinmi Detention of Persons DecreeDecree No. The cross-appellant in his appeal against that judgment to the Court of Appeal presented such a compendious and comprehensive brief of argument that could hardly fail to make a favurable impression on a listening tribunal.

On the fact abxcha it the purport of the provision is that the jurisdiction of the court is completely ousted. See Schorsch Meier Gimbh v. On being served with the motion papers learned counsel for the appellants filed a preliminary objection to the effect that the respondent could not maintain the action against the appellants on the ground that the Court c competence to entertain it.

General Sanni Abacha & Ors V Chief Gani Fawehinmi

Ikeja, Lagos constitutes a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 3 1. But of recent are new developments, especially in newly emerging countries with a problem of constitutional and political stability. In countries which have Constitutions albeit.

The appellants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the action of the respondent by the combined effect of the provisions of Section 4 of the State Security Detention of Persons Decree No.

In my view this court cannot take judicial notice of such order under Section 73 I a and b of the Evidence Act. Those issues read as follows:. There is next section 1 2 b i 0 I’ Decree No. See Chapter IV of the and Constitutions. There is provision in the Charter for a Commission to be set up, but since 19th January when the Charter was made in Banjul, The Gambia, no Commission has been set up.