{"title":"在尼日利亚制定基本权利行动:未解决的问题","authors":"C. Chijioke, Boma Geoffrey Toby","doi":"10.20319/pijss.2020.63.5669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Instituting fundamental Right actions has become one of the most popular forms of litigations in Nigeria; and for this credit must be given to the very liberal Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP RULES) as against the FREP Rules, 1979 which is repealed. One cannot boldly say, without fear of contradiction that our courts are as proactive in their approach to some basic issues in fundamental rights litigation as the FREP Rules intends. This paper set out to re-visit the issue of jurisdiction in respect of fundamental rights litigations and required number of applicants permitted to institute to such actions; reviewing some authorities in the course and finally resolving that there is need for the apex court to finally distinguish between its decisions in Turkur v. Government of Gongola State (1988) All NLR 42 and Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004) LPELR – 1587 SC, (2004); 5NWLR (Pt. 865) 208 and to pronounce on the issue of the number of applicants that may present fundamental rights' cause in court; at any PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences ISSN 2454-5899 57 time it is called upon to do so. The paper also recommended in the alternative, a tinkering of the FREP Rules to specifically handle the issues.","PeriodicalId":197416,"journal":{"name":"PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"INSTITUTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN NIGERIA: UNRESOLVED ISSUES\",\"authors\":\"C. Chijioke, Boma Geoffrey Toby\",\"doi\":\"10.20319/pijss.2020.63.5669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Instituting fundamental Right actions has become one of the most popular forms of litigations in Nigeria; and for this credit must be given to the very liberal Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP RULES) as against the FREP Rules, 1979 which is repealed. One cannot boldly say, without fear of contradiction that our courts are as proactive in their approach to some basic issues in fundamental rights litigation as the FREP Rules intends. This paper set out to re-visit the issue of jurisdiction in respect of fundamental rights litigations and required number of applicants permitted to institute to such actions; reviewing some authorities in the course and finally resolving that there is need for the apex court to finally distinguish between its decisions in Turkur v. Government of Gongola State (1988) All NLR 42 and Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004) LPELR – 1587 SC, (2004); 5NWLR (Pt. 865) 208 and to pronounce on the issue of the number of applicants that may present fundamental rights' cause in court; at any PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences ISSN 2454-5899 57 time it is called upon to do so. The paper also recommended in the alternative, a tinkering of the FREP Rules to specifically handle the issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.63.5669\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.63.5669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
提起基本权利诉讼已成为尼日利亚最流行的诉讼形式之一;在这一点上,必须归功于非常宽松的《2009年基本权利(执行程序)规则》(FREP规则),而不是1979年已被废除的《FREP规则》。人们不能大胆地说,在不担心矛盾的情况下,我们的法院在处理基本权利诉讼中的一些基本问题时,就像FREP规则所打算的那样积极主动。本文件旨在重新探讨基本权利诉讼的管辖权问题,以及获准提起这类诉讼的申请人数目;审查了课程中的一些权威,并最终解决了最高法院需要最终区分其在Turkur诉贡古拉州政府(1988)All NLR 42和Grace Jack诉马库尔迪农业大学(2004)LPELR - 1587 SC,(2004)中的决定;5NWLR (Pt. 865) 208,并就可能在法庭上提出基本权利理由的申请人人数问题发表意见;在任何《PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences》ISSN 2454-5899的时候,它都被要求这样做。该文件还建议在替代方案中,修补FREP规则,以专门处理这些问题。
INSTITUTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN NIGERIA: UNRESOLVED ISSUES
Instituting fundamental Right actions has become one of the most popular forms of litigations in Nigeria; and for this credit must be given to the very liberal Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP RULES) as against the FREP Rules, 1979 which is repealed. One cannot boldly say, without fear of contradiction that our courts are as proactive in their approach to some basic issues in fundamental rights litigation as the FREP Rules intends. This paper set out to re-visit the issue of jurisdiction in respect of fundamental rights litigations and required number of applicants permitted to institute to such actions; reviewing some authorities in the course and finally resolving that there is need for the apex court to finally distinguish between its decisions in Turkur v. Government of Gongola State (1988) All NLR 42 and Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004) LPELR – 1587 SC, (2004); 5NWLR (Pt. 865) 208 and to pronounce on the issue of the number of applicants that may present fundamental rights' cause in court; at any PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences ISSN 2454-5899 57 time it is called upon to do so. The paper also recommended in the alternative, a tinkering of the FREP Rules to specifically handle the issues.