Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as
the Constitution- gives every person who alleges that
any of his rights contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution has
been or is being or is likely to be contravened by any person the
constitutional right to seek redress of such infringement in any
High Court in the State where such wrong has been or is being or
likely to be committed.
Nevertheless, considering the economic situation of Nigerian
citizens, and of course, many times, those who are victims of
fundamental rights breach are less privileged and or poor persons
who cannot even afford the cost of engaging the services of a
lawyer to represent him or her. Of recent, just in the month of
February, 2018, the Chief Judge of the High Court of
the Federal Capital Territory- Abuja, signed into law, the High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja, (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 2018, which was to come into force on the 15th
day of February, 2018. By this new Rules, Order 65 provides for
fees and allowances. And by Rule 1(a) of the Order 65, ‘The fees
se-out in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules are
payable by a person commencing the respective proceedings or
desiring the respective service specified in those
Schedules’.
A study of these Rules, reveals that fees payable under the
old Rules of 2004, has been increased to
an increased amount. For instance, filing of an application to
Court is not less than N1,000.00., an affidavit is not less than
N500.00., whereas, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules, 2009-herein after referred to as FREPR, by the
Appendix, the filing fee in fundamental rights is just N500.00,
while an affidavit shall be N50.00.
This paper is of the fear that applications under the FREPR
might also be increased by the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria,
who has been conferred the constitutional power to make provisions
for the Rules and Procedures on the provisions of Chapter IV of the
Constitution by Section 46(3) of the
Constitution, considering the increased fees under
the High Court of FCT’s new Rules, the situation which might
prevent the courage to enforce fundamental rights of victims.
Hence, this paper calls for a ‘no chargeable
fees’ on enforcement of fundamental rights
actions.
First and foremost, it must be emphasized by the writer of this
paper that it is not the objective of the FREPR that government
should make moneys from the enforcement of fundamental rights,
rather, it is the primary duty of the government to protect the
security and welfare of its peoples as provided by
section 14(2) of the Constitution. In
other words, the point that the writer of this paper is making is
that monetary profit is not the objective of the FREPR, therefore,
the over-ridding objectives of the FREPR has been clearly stated in
the Preamble to the FREPR thus ‘‘1. The Court shall
constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the
overriding objectives of these Rules at every stage of human rights
action, especially whenever it exercises any power given to it by
these Rules or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets
any rule. 3. The overriding
objectives of these Rules are as follows: (a) The Constitution,
especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be
expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to
advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them
and affording the protections intended by them. (b) For the purpose
of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the
applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal,
regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought
to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these
bills constitute instruments in themselves or form parts of larger
documents like constitutions. Such bills include; (i) The African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other Instruments
(including protocols) in the African regional human rights system,
(ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human
rights system, (c) For the purpose of advancing but never for the
purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the
Court may make consequential orders as may be just and expedient.
(d) The Court shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice
for all classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate,
the uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the
unrepresented. (Underlining is the writer of this paper’s for
emphasis).
Furthermore, the writer of this paper is of the
submission that suits or any matter bothering on enforcement of
fundamental rights should be made free of charge and of any
cost. This in the submission of the writer of this
paper, would encourage the enforcement of fundamental rights. For
instance, government agencies are encouraged to defend suits and to
institute suits in any court in Nigeria, by not paying any
prescribed fees. Thus, government’s agencies have the motivation to
carry out their functions under the law.
In the same vein, the writer of this paper is praying the
Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria to utilize his power as
conferred by section 46(3) of the
Constitution by waiving the payment of any fee in
respect of matters brought pursuant to the FREPR. This will
encourage the effective enforcement of fundamental rights by the
victim or his relative or human rights advocate/activist who would
enforce the fundamental rights of a victim.
More so that the FREPR has now prohibited the dismissing or
striking out of suits by any court before whom such suit is
instituted on the ground or for want of locus standi, thus
‘‘The Court shall encourage and welcome public interest
litigation in the human rights field and no human rights case may
be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi. In particular,
human rights activists, advocates or groups as well as
non-governmental organisations, may institute human rights
application on behalf of any potential applicant. In human rights
litigation, the applicant may include any of the following; (i)
Anyone acting in his own interest; (ii) Anyone acting on behalf of
another person; (iii) Anyone acting as a member of, or in the
interest of a group or class of persons; (iv) Anyone acting in the
public interest; and (v) Association acting in the interest
of its members or other individuals or groups’. (Underlining is
mine for emphasis).
Finally therefore, it is the belief of the writer of this paper
that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria would either by a
Practice Direction, directing all courts to desist from charging
any applicant for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained
under Chapter IV of the Constitution or by reviewing and or
amending or repealing the FREPR of the 2009 and making provisions
that waives the payment of any fee on actions bothering on Chapter
IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the Rules. This is
what is expected in no time and not an increment in the current
prescribed fee.
It is further hoped that human rights
activists/advocates/lawyers, Non-Governmental Organisations for the
enforcement of human rights, and the Nigerian public will also join
the writer of this paper in agitating a
#nochargeablefees on matters bothering on
Chapter IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. This, it is
believed, will bring about a situation where victims of human
rights violation would have no financial constraint in approaching
courts with jurisdiction to seek redress of any violation of their
fundamental rights and an indication that government actually cares
about the security and welfare of its people.
e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com
Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as
the Constitution- gives every person who alleges that
any of his rights contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution has
been or is being or is likely to be contravened by any person the
constitutional right to seek redress of such infringement in any
High Court in the State where such wrong has been or is being or
likely to be committed.
Nevertheless, considering the economic situation of Nigerian
citizens, and of course, many times, those who are victims of
fundamental rights breach are less privileged and or poor persons
who cannot even afford the cost of engaging the services of a
lawyer to represent him or her. Of recent, just in the month of
February, 2018, the Chief Judge of the High Court of
the Federal Capital Territory- Abuja, signed into law, the High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja, (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 2018, which was to come into force on the 15th
day of February, 2018. By this new Rules, Order 65 provides for
fees and allowances. And by Rule 1(a) of the Order 65, ‘The fees
se-out in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules are
payable by a person commencing the respective proceedings or
desiring the respective service specified in those
Schedules’.
A study of these Rules, reveals that fees payable under the
old Rules of 2004, has been increased to
an increased amount. For instance, filing of an application to
Court is not less than N1,000.00., an affidavit is not less than
N500.00., whereas, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules, 2009-herein after referred to as FREPR, by the
Appendix, the filing fee in fundamental rights is just N500.00,
while an affidavit shall be N50.00.
This paper is of the fear that applications under the FREPR
might also be increased by the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria,
who has been conferred the constitutional power to make provisions
for the Rules and Procedures on the provisions of Chapter IV of the
Constitution by Section 46(3) of the
Constitution, considering the increased fees under
the High Court of FCT’s new Rules, the situation which might
prevent the courage to enforce fundamental rights of victims.
Hence, this paper calls for a ‘no chargeable
fees’ on enforcement of fundamental rights
actions.
First and foremost, it must be emphasized by the writer of this
paper that it is not the objective of the FREPR that government
should make moneys from the enforcement of fundamental rights,
rather, it is the primary duty of the government to protect the
security and welfare of its peoples as provided by
section 14(2) of the Constitution. In
other words, the point that the writer of this paper is making is
that monetary profit is not the objective of the FREPR, therefore,
the over-ridding objectives of the FREPR has been clearly stated in
the Preamble to the FREPR thus ‘‘1. The Court shall
constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the
overriding objectives of these Rules at every stage of human rights
action, especially whenever it exercises any power given to it by
these Rules or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets
any rule. 3. The overriding
objectives of these Rules are as follows: (a) The Constitution,
especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be
expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to
advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them
and affording the protections intended by them. (b) For the purpose
of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the
applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal,
regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought
to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these
bills constitute instruments in themselves or form parts of larger
documents like constitutions. Such bills include; (i) The African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other Instruments
(including protocols) in the African regional human rights system,
(ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human
rights system, (c) For the purpose of advancing but never for the
purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the
Court may make consequential orders as may be just and expedient.
(d) The Court shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice
for all classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate,
the uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the
unrepresented. (Underlining is the writer of this paper’s for
emphasis).
Furthermore, the writer of this paper is of the
submission that suits or any matter bothering on enforcement of
fundamental rights should be made free of charge and of any
cost. This in the submission of the writer of this
paper, would encourage the enforcement of fundamental rights. For
instance, government agencies are encouraged to defend suits and to
institute suits in any court in Nigeria, by not paying any
prescribed fees. Thus, government’s agencies have the motivation to
carry out their functions under the law.
In the same vein, the writer of this paper is praying the
Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria to utilize his power as
conferred by section 46(3) of the
Constitution by waiving the payment of any fee in
respect of matters brought pursuant to the FREPR. This will
encourage the effective enforcement of fundamental rights by the
victim or his relative or human rights advocate/activist who would
enforce the fundamental rights of a victim.
More so that the FREPR has now prohibited the dismissing or
striking out of suits by any court before whom such suit is
instituted on the ground or for want of locus standi, thus
‘‘The Court shall encourage and welcome public interest
litigation in the human rights field and no human rights case may
be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi. In particular,
human rights activists, advocates or groups as well as
non-governmental organisations, may institute human rights
application on behalf of any potential applicant. In human rights
litigation, the applicant may include any of the following; (i)
Anyone acting in his own interest; (ii) Anyone acting on behalf of
another person; (iii) Anyone acting as a member of, or in the
interest of a group or class of persons; (iv) Anyone acting in the
public interest; and (v) Association acting in the interest
of its members or other individuals or groups’. (Underlining is
mine for emphasis).
Finally therefore, it is the belief of the writer of this paper
that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria would either by a
Practice Direction, directing all courts to desist from charging
any applicant for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained
under Chapter IV of the Constitution or by reviewing and or
amending or repealing the FREPR of the 2009 and making provisions
that waives the payment of any fee on actions bothering on Chapter
IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the Rules. This is
what is expected in no time and not an increment in the current
prescribed fee.
It is further hoped that human rights
activists/advocates/lawyers, Non-Governmental Organisations for the
enforcement of human rights, and the Nigerian public will also join
the writer of this paper in agitating a
#nochargeablefees on matters bothering on
Chapter IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. This, it is
believed, will bring about a situation where victims of human
rights violation would have no financial constraint in approaching
courts with jurisdiction to seek redress of any violation of their
fundamental rights and an indication that government actually cares
about the security and welfare of its people.
e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com