Lakanmi v A-G (West) (1970) — Judicial Independence and Ouster Clauses

Introduction

Lakanmi v Attorney General (West) (1970) 1 All NLR 57 is one of the most important decisions in Nigerian legal history, establishing the fundamental principle that the courts retain inherent jurisdiction to review the validity of legislation, even where the Constitution or a statute purports to oust that jurisdiction. The case arose during the early years of military rule in Nigeria and addressed the justiciability of edicts and decrees that sought to exclude judicial review.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs, Chief Lakanmi and others, were the executives of the former Western Nigeria Marketing Board and its subsidiaries. Following the military takeover of 1966, the federal military government and the Western State government issued decrees and edicts that dissolved the Marketing Boards and transferred their assets to the state. The decrees contained provisions ousting the jurisdiction of the courts to inquire into the validity of any act done under the decrees.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the edicts and decrees, arguing that they had been deprived of their property without compensation and without due process of law. The federal government argued that the ouster clauses prevented the court from entertaining the challenge.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of an edict or decree that contained an ouster clause
2. Whether the edicts and decrees violated the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution
3. Whether military legislation could override the Constitution
4. The effect of ouster clauses on the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts

Judgment

The Supreme Court, delivering judgment through Justice Adetokunbo Ademola (Chief Justice of Nigeria), held that the ouster clauses could not prevent the court from inquiring into whether the legislation was properly enacted or whether it violated fundamental rights. The court held:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law, and any law that violates it is void to the extent of the inconsistency
2. Ouster clauses cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court to determine whether legislation complies with the Constitution
3. The court has inherent jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights regardless of legislative provisions
4. The edicts were invalid because they violated the plaintiffs’ right to property without due process

Significance

The Lakanmi case established several enduring principles of Nigerian constitutional law:

1. Judicial Independence: The judiciary has the inherent power to review the validity of legislation and cannot be excluded from exercising that power by legislative enactment
2. Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the supreme law, and any legislation inconsistent with it is void
3. Fundamental Rights Protection: The courts have a duty to protect fundamental rights, and ouster clauses cannot defeat that duty
4. Rule of Law: Even military governments are subject to the rule of law, and their legislative acts may be reviewed by the courts

The case has been consistently followed and applied by Nigerian courts, most notably during subsequent periods of military rule when ouster clauses were again employed. It remains a cornerstone of Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence, cited in every case involving ouster clauses and judicial review of legislative validity.