Ali v Maradi and abuse of fundamental rights cases (1)

Fundamental rights are essential rights and freedoms guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and other applicable legal instruments. They serve as safeguards against arbitrary governmental actions and unlawful interference by individuals, institutions, and other bodies. In Nigeria, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), particularly Chapter IV, guarantees fundamental rights, including the rights to life, personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination, etc. To ensure the protection of these rights, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 provide a procedural framework through which persons whose rights have been, are being, or are likely to be infringed may seek judicial redress. The enforcement procedure is designed to promote access to justice, facilitate the protection of human dignity, and provide an effective remedy for violations of fundamental rights. It reflects the principle that constitutional rights must not remain mere declarations but must be capable of practical enforcement through the courts. However, despite the noble objectives of this procedure, concerns have arisen regarding its abuse by litigants who may invoke it for purposes other than the genuine protection of fundamental rights.

 The abuse of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules occurs where a litigant employs the procedure improperly, frivolously, or for an ulterior purpose. Such abuse may arise where a party disguises an ordinary contractual, commercial, property, or other civil dispute as a fundamental rights violation, uses fundamental rights proceedings to harass an opponent, seeks to frustrate or delay the determination of another suit, or institutes proceedings primarily to secure an improper advantage. It may also occur where the procedure is used to circumvent established legal processes or to pursue claims that do not genuinely disclose an infringement or threatened infringement of a fundamental right. The issue is particularly significant because the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 are intended to facilitate, rather than obstruct, access to justice. The Rules adopt a liberal and rights-oriented approach to the enforcement of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, such liberality does not confer an unrestricted licence on litigants to invoke the procedure for every grievance or disagreement. The courts must therefore strike a balance between ensuring that genuine claims are heard without unnecessary technical obstacles and preventing the misuse of the procedure for collateral, vexatious, or oppressive purposes.

 The abuse of fundamental rights enforcement proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice. It may lead to the multiplication of suits, waste judicial time and resources, impose unnecessary financial and emotional burdens on opposing parties, and undermine public confidence in the legal system. More importantly, it may weaken the effectiveness of fundamental rights protection by diverting judicial attention from genuine cases of human rights violations. Consequently, the courts have an important responsibility to distinguish legitimate claims for the enforcement of fundamental rights from proceedings instituted in bad faith or for purposes inconsistent with the objectives of the Rules. Against this background, the topic, “Abuse of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure by Litigants”, examines the nature and forms of such abuse, the legal principles governing the institution and determination of fundamental rights proceedings, the attitude of Nigerian courts towards improper invocation of the enforcement procedure, and the remedies or sanctions available to prevent and address such abuse. The central concern is how the enforcement procedure can remain accessible and effective for persons whose rights require protection while ensuring that it is not exploited to defeat the ends of justice. Ultimately, the proper administration of fundamental rights jurisdiction requires both the protection of genuine constitutional claims and the prevention of procedural misuse by litigants.

READ ALSO:  Fundamental human rights in Nigeria

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case as reported in Ali v Maradi (2026) 15 NWLR (Pt.20-62) 69 are that the appellants instituted an action against the respondent under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, seeking a declaration that the respondent’s threat to arrest and detain the 1st appellant by the use of police officers was illegal and a violation of his right to personal liberty guaranteed by sections 46 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution and a declaration that the transaction conducted by the appellants with the respondent, being a commercial transaction in the normal course of business transaction, could not give rise to any criminal investigation or proceedings against them. The appellants also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent either by himself or his agents, assigns, privies, police officers and/or any person whomsoever, from arresting and/or detaining the 1st appellant on account of the subject matter of the application and an order setting aside the undertaking which the 1st applicant was forced to make, agreeing to a payment of the sum of ₦3,000,000.00 to the respondent before His Royal Highness, the Galadima of Kano. The case of the appellants was that, in a commercial transaction with the respondent in respect of sales/distribution of poly mats, the 2nd appellant’s product, they supplied to the respondent on credit goods worth ₦5,000,000.00, who paid the sum of ₦3,500,000.00, leaving a balance of ₦1,500,000.00. Subsequently, the respondent made an advance payment of ₦6,000,000.00 for further supplies of the product but the appellants were able to supply only goods worth ₦3,000,000.00 as result of economic challenges and insurgency. The respondent was put on notice of the development. The appellants averred that the respondent resorted to the use of threat and force from the Royal Palace of the Galadima of Kano and the police to make the appellant undertake to pay the balance of ₦3,000,000.00 without considering the sum of ₦1,500,000.00 initially owed them by the respondent. The respondent’s case was that he paid a total of ₦8,500,000.00 in different instalments to the appellants for the supply of poly mats and that the appellants were able to supply to the value of ₦5,255,000.00, leaving a balance of ₦3,147,000.00, which they have refused or neglected to refund despite repeated demands. The respondent denied approaching the police or any other law enforcement agency to recover his money from the appellants but admitted approaching the traditional institution to recover his money. At the end of hearing, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the respondent. It ordered the appellants to pay the respondent the indebted sum of ₦3,147,000.00. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal in part.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Reliefs Which can be Claimed Under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules:

 Reliefs claimable under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules are limited strictly to matters arising under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Any exercise of jurisdiction in respect of subject-matters outside the scope of Chapter IV is a nullity, being unconstitutional and void.

Per ADAH, J.S.C. at pages 90-91, paras A-B:

“In the instant case, the trial court, in its decision at pages 127-128 of the record of appeal, expressed its views as follows:

1. That the transaction between the respondent and the applicants was purely civil in nature.

2. That there was no evidence from the applicants establishing that they were arrested or detained by the respondent or by any of his agents.

3. That the applicants admitted their indebtedness to the respondent, as contained in paragraph 16 of the applicants’ affidavit and paragraphs 3(e), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), 0), (k), (I), and of the respondent’s counter-affidavit.

4. That although the applicant undertook to pay the sum of N3,147,000 to the respondent, as evidenced by the undertaking attached to the counter-affidavit, there was no material placed before the court to show any threat to the applicants’ fundamental rights.

5. That the further and better affidavit of the applicants, particularly paragraph 2 thereof, amounted to a legal argument and conclusion and constituted an afterthought.

6. Consequently, and in the interest of justice, the court made the following orders:

(a) that the respondent shall not employ the services of any law-enforcement agency to enforce the transaction between him and the applicants; and

(b) that the applicants shall pay to the respondent the sum of 143,147,000, being the amount admittedly owed to the respondent. (Italic mine).

 From the foregoing, the trial court was categorical in its finding that the appellants’ claim was purely civil and that there was no breach of their fundamental rights. It is significant to note that there was no counter-claim filed by the respondents. In the circumstances, once the appellants failed to establish any violation of their fundamental rights, the only proper order open to the court was a dismissal of the application. Accordingly, the trial court’s venture into the contractual relationship and the issue of indebtedness between the parties amounted to an unwarranted overreach, which ultimately occasioned injustice to the appellants and was therefore unnecessary and improper.”