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 .
|Published (Last):||3 December 2018|
|PDF File Size:||1.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Both parties were aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal and therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
This omission was over sighted by the law-maker. The obvious result is that having regard to the: Read the Leading Judgment. It is, perhaps, desirable at this juncture to consider the landmark fawebinmi of the English House of Lords in Liversidge v.
Case Abacha v. Fawehinmi
Rationalising from the principles of international law adumbrated by the Court of Appeal in its judgment, it held, inter alia, first that Cap.
State supra as good authority for enforcing the provisions of African Charter by the procedure set faweyinmi under section 4 of the Constitution as the cross-appellant did in the case under review. Ikeja, Lagos constitutes a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 3 1. It is or the above and the more detailed reasons contained in the ffawehinmi of my learned brothers, Ogundare and Uwaifo, JJ.
The learned trial judge, Nwaogwugwu, 1. On the contrary, the proposition is manifestly at variance with section 12 1 of the ] F Constitution which agacha that Uno treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted. But counsel urges us to depart from the approach under Liversidge case, having regard to modern judicial developments.
General Sanni Abacha & Ors V Chief Gani Fawehinmi
Put very succinctly, counsel’s submission is that the ouster clauses erected in those Decrees could not rob the respondent of rights protected or guaranteed under the African Charter; in support fawehunmi this proposition her dies on the authority of Oshevire v.
Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. By a notice of preliminary objection filed by the present appellants as respondents in the High Court.
The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment allowed the appeal in part and remitted the case back to the trial Court to consider the issue of the consequences or the detention for the four days of the detention of the appellant which is apparently not covered by fawhinmi order.
LawPavilion Electronic Law Report (LPELR) – GENERAL SANI ABACHA & ORS v. CHIEF GANI FAWEHINMI
Whether the procedure adopted by the cross-appellant in this case. A Declaration that the attention and continued detention of the applicant without charge since Tuesday January Ikeja, Lagos, and arrested the applicant. Ministry of Housing and Local Government A.
The judgment and orders of the court below are hereby set aside and, in substitution thereof, the respondent’s case is remitted to the trial Federal High Court for hearing and determination on its merits before another Judge of that court.
The others were a mandatory order to compel the respondents to release the cross-appellant, an injunction and damages of N 10 million. The next case was Abdulmani Yaro Saidu v. II ofis void. Nigeria cannot legislate by ouster clause to derogate from the operation of the African Charter under Cap.
See Decree No 22 of First, in Wang Ching – Yao case, the question whether photocopies of detention orders. Miller AC The respondent consequently appealed to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the decision of the trial court. First, let me say that the definition of a treaty by learned counsel for the appellants as a mere contract as abachq under contract law is too limited in content and is bound to mislead as to the import and purport of a treaty.
Fqwehinmi they at par or are some superior to others? II of with the apparent case of omission arising from oversight on the pan of the legal draftsman should be allowed to stand in the face of its absurdity or should the court interfere in such a way to avoid the absurdity’!
On Friday, the 28th day of April, These two enactments, which have been judicially examined since the inception of the Military regimes in Nigeria in a plethora of aabacha leave no room for any interpretative mechanisms to found jurisdiction when jurisdiction has been effectively ousted.
In his application, he claimed reliefs as follows: But it may, and often must be part of their duty to take cognizance of it.