ABACHA V FAWEHINMI PDF
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):||11 October 2010|
|PDF File Size:||15.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Usually no reasons are given by the detaining authority as to how a detainee constitutes a menace or threat to the State. I am now left with Issues I. Counsel reiterates that the African Charter has been made part of Nigerian laws by the process of incorporation whereby the whole of fawehinml African Charter is given effect to under the Nigerian Laws by reproducing the African Charter unedited in the schedule afwehinmi the municipal law, i.
The appellants in this appeal were the respondents at the trial court while the respondent herein was the applicant. Both counsel in the appeal hold divergent views on the scope and nature of the local enactments in comparison with the African Charter.
LFN and the long title to Cap The respondent was dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court and therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal.
He also submits that Ibidapo case cited by counsel for the appellants is not apposite and urges us to dismiss the appeal. 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 main issues for our determination. Thus, according to counsel.
If the Charter was not suspended even by implication, it would have run counter to the Decree of the Military which in essence makes the Fawehinki void. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and held that the European Economic Act had modified the old English fawheinmi of not giving judgment in foreign currency.
The respondents did not react in any way, either in their brief or during oral hearing, to the second arm of the cross-appellant’s issue No. It may be noted that the Defence General Regulations,Regulation abahca, para I were made for emergency period in England.
Ikeja, Lagos, and arrested the applicant. Act of State doctrine is a doctrine denying to municipal courts I the jurisdiction to pass judgment upon the validity or legality of the acts of a foreign state and 2 the right to challenge executive statements of their own government on the conduct of foreign affairs. At the oral hearing, Mr. An ‘order’ as a subsidiary legislation must be seen as a statutory c, for example, S.
Case Abacha v. Fawehinmi
Art 23 and between citizens and member states e. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. It was following these affirmations that the member states agreed the Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the most pertinent of which for the purposes of these appeals provide:.
Under strict customary international law, individuals are not subjects of international law nor were municipal or domestic courts called upon to control or administer treaty obligations between sovereign states.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nigeria attempted to fulfil an international obligation which it voluntarily entered into and agreed to be bound and that Government cannot be allowed under international law to contract out of afwehinmi international obligations by local legislation.
Had the lower court done so. But rather, unlike a mere contract, being a treaty creating benefits to individuals in a state can be enforced in the municipal courts of that state, relying on the cases of Application des Gaz SA v.
Abacha v. Fawehinmi- Between Monism and | Gbadebo A Olagunju –
I leave the matter at that and say faweihnmi more on it. I am unable to discover from close reading of section I I of Decree No. All other expressions contained in the concurring judgments. It has been strenuously submitted on behalf of the cross-appellant that “the moment Decree No.
The respondent was hold under this Decree except four clear days before the Order was signed.
Be it noted that while Chapter IV of the Constitution was suspended for the purpose of the Act, no mention was made of Cap. I shall be obliged to rely on some of those arguments in the course of this judgment.
It is common place knowledgethat no Government will be allowed to contract out by local legislation. To fawehinmii the court to subject the issuance of a detention order to judicial review, according to counsel, is not questioning the competence of the respondents to promulgate Decrees No.
Decrees of the Federal Military Government.