By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
The Concept of Locus Standi
In law generally, a plaintiff approaching the court for any remedy is expected to establish sufficient interest in the subject matter, which in simple terms, is his standing to institute and maintain the action. For decades, there has been a fierce battle to widen the scope of the concept of locus standi, which has so far been very narrowly interpreted by the Courts. In the case of Centre for Oil Pollution v NNPC, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to expand the frontiers of locus standi when it reviewed all its previous decisions on the subject to reflect some flexibility, but it was still short of outright reversal. The question of who can be sufficiently aggrieved to approach the court for any remedy, especially in public interest litigations, is still far from any acceptable and conclusive resolution. Given the apparent decline in leadership accountability, good governance and the rising cases of corruption and poverty in the land, the court must come to terms with the need to relax the rigid principles to be established to satisfy the demands of locus standi. To hold our leaders accountable to the people, the right of access to court must be widened to allow established institutions, notable activists and well-meaning individuals to take up cases on behalf of the people. The need to guard against busy bodies to avoid a floodgate of cases is well appreciated but we must take into consideration the rate of illiteracy in our land in order to recognize a class of litigants to confer them with locus on behalf of the rest of society. Permit me to share with you the latest decision of the Supreme Court on locus standi, delivered on February 7, 2025.
Facts of the Case
The facts of the case are as reported in Okonjo-Iweala v. Fawehinmi (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt.1988) 1. This case also birthed the Supreme Court decision in President, FRN v Fawehinmi (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt.1988) 61. The original plaintiff, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN (now deceased), commenced an action vide an originating summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja against the 2nd and 3rd respondents as the 1st and 2nd defendants, the appellant as the 3rd defendant, the 4th defendant and the 4th respondent as the 5th defendant seeking the determination of the following questions:
whether any public officer in Nigeria, particularly a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is entitled to be paid yearly salary outside the salary prescribed by the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, Etc) Act No. 6 of (a) 2002;
whether particularly a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is entitled to be paid in foreign currency outside the currency prescribed by the Act; and
whether the authorisation by the 2nd respondent of payment of a Minister’s salary outside that prescribed in an Act of the National Assembly and in a foreign currency is not an abuse of power under the 1999 Constitution.
Upon the determination of the questions, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the appellant and the 4th defendant, who were Ministers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and public officers, were not entitled to earn salaries above those prescribed by the Act; a declaration that no public officer under the Act is entitled to receive his or her salary in any other currency other than Naira; a declaration that the yearly salary of $247,000 (about N36 Million) being paid to the appellant, the Federal Minister of Finance, was a flagrant violation of the Act which prescribed a yearly salary ofN794,085.00 for every Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; and a declaration that the yearly salary of $120,000 (about N17 Million) being paid to the 4th defendant, the Federal Minister of External Affairs, was a flagrant violation of the Act which prescribes a yearly salary of N794,085 for every Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The plaintiff also sought an order compelling the appellant and the 4th defendant to refund to the Federal Government of Nigeria any amount in excess of the prescribed salary in the Act; and a declaration that the authorisation by the 2nd respondent of the salaries paid to the appellant and the 4th defendant in violation of the Act amounted to an abuse of power contrary to section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution and section 153 of the Constitution which empowers the 3rd respondent to determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in sections 84 and 124 of the Constitution and in pursuant of which the Act was promulgated. He also sought an injunction restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria, its agents, servants, privies or howsoever called, particularly the 2nd respondent, from paying Ministers or any other public officers covered by the Act outside the salaries prescribed in the Act.
The plaintiff’s originating summons was supported by a thirteen-paragraph affidavit and subsequently, he filed a six-paragraph further affidavit with an exhibit marked “Exhibit Gani1”. His originating processes indicated that he was a Nigerian; that he was the Chairman of the National Conscience Party; that he was a former presidential candidate; that he was a taxpayer bound by provisions of the 1999 Constitution; that he was a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who subscribed to the oath to support and uphold the 1999 Constitution; that he also subscribed to the oath to truly assist the courts of law established by the 1999 Constitution; and that he will uphold the integrity of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. The appellant and the 2nd and 4th respondents respectively filed notices of preliminary objection dated 10th March 2004 praying that the suit be dismissed or struck out for lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. The 3rd respondent also filed an objection dated 12th March 2004.
Decisions of the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal
In its ruling, the trial court upheld the preliminary objections and struck out the action for lack of locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit. Aggrieved by the ruling of the trial court, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held that he was a political elite in Nigeria and represented the conscience of the people and by the averments in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and paragraph 5 of the further affidavit, he qualified as person who had sufficient interest to bring an action in court in respect of an infraction of the provisions of the Act; and that in International, except for non-commercial use as permitted by copyright law.
For permission requests or inquiries, please contact The Gavel International ([email protected]). Unauthorized use or reproduction of our content without permission may result in legal action in accordance with applicable copyright laws.
