Mar 14, 2020

The Challenges of Executive Immunity Clause in the Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999 | Dele Adesina, SAN, FCIArb




AN ADDRESS DELIVERED TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE MANAGEMENT COURSE, INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES, ABUJA ON 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011




I consider it a great honour once again to be invited to this year’s Executive Intelligence Management Course of this great Institute to deliver a paper on the topic “The Challenges of the Immunity Clause in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999”2 I recall that I was here last year to address you during a similar Course.  Once again, I thank you for this invitation.




The subject of Constitutional Immunity will continue to attract public discourse as long as the style of profligacy and licentiousness of leadership, audacious demonstration of affluence by the few but highly powerful and demonstrable impunity in the conduct and handling of public fund continue in our society.


These are issues of accountability, responsibility and transparency in governance and they constitute serious concern to the governed.  The desire therefore to bring erring leaders to judgment in the exercise of the sovereign authority of the people and the limit of such authority if any will continue to make discussion on the subject of immunity relevant in Nigeria.


I belief that every position of authority is to serve the people and honestly too. It is not to serve one’s self or ones family.  Regrettably, experience has shown that some of our leaders seek leadership to wield authority. Authority to amass wealth and accumulate material possession.  Indeed, it has been said that in Nigeria, some stash money in the names of their cronies and family members with scandalous and reckless abandon.   All these lead to wastage of public resources and high degree of corruption.


Therefore, subjecting leadership to control and judicial sanction without offending the Constitution, requires a good understanding of the provisions of the immunity clause in the constitution.  But let me ask, how many people are covered by this provision?  And what is the percentage of this people compared to several other leaders occupying one position of authority or the other, who also constantly abuse and misuse their powers and authority?


THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY

Section 308(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution” which guarantees the listed public officers immunity from criminal prosecutions subject to the provisions of section 308(2) provides as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution but subject to sub-section two (2) of this section -

a.      No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;

b.      A person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

c.      No process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person whom this section applies shall be applied or issued, provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office”.


This sweeping provision grants general cover for the listed members of the Executive to get away with virtually everything to the extent that they are free from criminal prosecution during the pendency of their tenure no matter what offence is committed by them.  However, it must be noted that immunity 


“does not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party”.3


Subsection (3) listed the persons to whom the section is applicable.  In the very words of the section. 


“This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor and the reference in this section to period of office is a reference period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office”.4


The Advanced Learners Dictionary of English Language defines immunity in the context it was used in the Constitution to mean:

“The state of being protected from something, protection against particular laws that is given to politicians” 5

The Authoritative Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition, also define the word to mean:

“Any exception from a duty, liability or service of process especially such as exception granted to a public official” 6

It also defines Constitutional immunity to mean:

“Immunity granted by the Constitution” 7

Simply stated, immunity means protection from liability.  In other words, if the public official concerned commits even murder which is absolutely prohibited by our criminal law,8 or offences of obtaining money under false pretences contrary to Section 419 of the Criminal Code9 the Constitution says you cannot arrest or detain not to talk of prosecuting or sentencing simply because the person involved happens to be the President, Vice President, Governor or the Deputy Governor. 


This is notwithstanding the wave of seeming Executive lawlessness in the polity and the parasitic ruling class who more often, are not able to separate or distinguish between public fund and their personal money.  For me, providing constitutional protection against this situation amounts to subversion of the rule of law, democracy and political stability which must not be allowed to persist. But how did it all begin?


The Doctrine of sovereign immunity has its origin in the anachronistic vestige; expressed in the latin maxim Rex non protest peccare (The king can do no wrong). As the King enjoyed absolute immunity, he could neither be impleaded in his own courts nor subject to any foreign jurisdiction.  According to King Maneleus of Sparta

“When a king takes spoils, he robs no one, when a king kills, he commits no murder, he only fulfils justice” 10


I think the Yoruba Native Law and Custom has something similar to this. This can be deduced from the very title of ‘KABIYESI’ answered by our Royal Fathers.  Jurisprudentially, Kabiyesi literarily means “who can ask him questions? Nobody.”  But inspite of this referred position of the Royal Fathers, the Yoruba Native Law and Custom still have very strong, irresistible and generally accepted system of bringing an erring Oba to justice.  


By virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which came into force on 1st January, 1948, the position has changed.  Effective from that date, the Crown can be sued in England for the tort of its servants.  This was a radical change from the pre 1947 position of total immunity enjoyed by the Crown11   The 1947 Act does not apply in Nigeria by virtue of the Act being a post 1900 legislation and therefore not qualified as a statute of general application.   
    

The Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 made the government generally liable with limited exceptions in tort and contract. Even before this enactment, it was possible to claim against the Crown with the Attorney General’s Fiat.  Please note however that law suits against the Sovereign in UK in his or her personal and private capacity remain inadmissible under the British law.12


In the United States of America, the Federal Government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to the suit. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution states that

The Judicial powers of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or by Citizens or subjects of any foreign State”   


The Supreme Court of United States has held that this Amendment re-affirms that States possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in Federal Courts without their consent.     


 In Australia, there is no automatic crown immunity, although the crown may be explicitly or implicitly immune from any particular statute.

In my opinion, the principles of state sovereignty and Crown Immunity are distinguishable from the Executive Immunity granted by the Constitution, because, even though these officers represent the Executive authority of the State, they do not constitute the Sovereignty of the State. 


THE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE

In Olabisi Onabanjo V. Concord Press of Nigeria,13 the Plaintiff who was the Governor of Ogun State had filed a libel suit against the Concord Press of Nigeria and promptly, the Defendant challenged the competence of the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff was immune from being sued under section 308 of the Constitution and therefore cannot sue. This objection was dismissed when the Court held that although the Governor could not be sued, he was not precluded from instituting and maintaining an action in Court. 


The same decision was reached, in the case of His Excellency, Apa Aku V. Plateau Publishing Ltd. & Ors,14 another libel suit instituted by another serving Governor. The Jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged on the basis inter alia of section 267 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1979 (similar to section 308 of 1999 Constitution). The defendant had argued that since processes cannot be issued requiring or compelling the Plaintiff to appear before the Court that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in the suit. That, even, in proceedings commenced by the Governor, no process of any Court requiring or compelling his appearance can be issued. The Governor, he further argued, cannot waive the immunity conferred on him on the ground of public policy.  That he cannot be subject to the process of Court in his private capacity. Sound argument you will say.


But this is what the respected Hon. Judge said and I quote:

“In my view the provisions of section 267 of the Constitution quoted in full above are very clear and unambiguous. It means as long as the Plaintiff, that is, His Excellency, Apa Aku remains in the office of the Governor no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him.  He shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period, either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise.  Likewise and in the same circumstance, no process of any court requiring or compelling his appearance shall be applied for or issued.  In effect the section gave the Plaintiff immunity while in office as Governor and not disability in legal proceedings while in office as Governor” 15

Consequently, His Lordship dismissed the objection because according to him, the Constitution does not deprive the Plaintiff the right to sue.  One wonders what then is the status of the legal right of equality of all persons before the law?  If you as a President, Vice President, Governor or a Deputy Governor can sue me but I cannot sue you for remedy over an injury done by you to me just because you are in office, that to me does not appear to be fair or just.  


The decision in Apa Aku V. Plateau Publishing (Supra) was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Chief DSP Alamieyeseigha V. Teiwa & ors16.  The Respondents in this case had secured an order to compel the Chief of Air Staff to investigate some alleged criminal acts purportedly committed by the Appellant while he was a serving officer in the Nigerian Air Force.

The Appellant Governor Alamieyeseigha was not made a party to the suit because he was at the time of the suit, the Governor of Bayelsa State.  Thereupon, the Appellant sought and obtained the leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal against the Order as an interested party. The Respondents objected relying on the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution.  In dismissing the objection, the Court of Appeal held as follows:


“The failure of Respondents to put on notice the Appellant who would be directly affected by the order to be made under the application for mandamus is not only void for breach of section 36 of the Constitution, Order 46 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1999, it is also void for breach of the immunity granted to the Appellant from process or proceedings civil or criminal by section 308 of the Constitution. 

The immunity granted is not intended to subject a person to whom section 308 applies to a civil disability in respect of any of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  At least, it is not intended that it shall deprive a person concerned the right to fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights or obligations - as would be the case if the attempt by the Respondents were to be successful. 

Section 308 of the Constitution is not to be read in isolation it should be read alongside other provisions of the Constitution in such a way as to give effect and validity to the other rights conferred by the Constitution”.17


It has also been contended that since the affected Executives cannot be sued or charged to court during their term of office, cases that arose before their assumption of office cannot be continued against them while in office and therefore has to be stayed to await the expiration of their tenure.  See the cases of Cornel Oluwole Rotimi Vs. Mcgregor18; Bola Tinubu Vs. IMB Securities Ltd.19 and Media Technic Nigeria Ltd. Vs. Lam Adesina20


Talking about the scope of the cover provided by Section 308 of the Constitution, Hon. Justice Oduyemi JCA had this to say in Alamieyeseigha’s case (Supra)


“What section 308 provides in favour of the persons enumerated in subsection(3) thereof so long as each of them holds the office stipulated is an immunity from civil or criminal proceedings instituted or continued  against him; immunity from arrest or imprisonment during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise or the application for or issue of the process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom the section applies.  It is settled law that any breach the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution renders such process or proceedings civil or criminal, null, void and of no effect.”21 


It therefore follows that the officers listed in the said section cannot be served with any court process. No court can lawfully exercise any jurisdiction on him.  If any court does, the exercise of that jurisdiction shall be a nullity.
  

The above cited cases are civil in nature.  Not much have been seen or recorded on the interpretation and scope of the concept in criminal cases.  Not until 2002, the Executive Immunity clause was perceived as almighty, unquestionable and absolute.  That the President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors cannot even be investigated talk less of being prosecuted while in office was the popular perception.  That position was decisively changed in 2002 when our court put their feet down and insisted that the listed officers may not be prosecuted in view of the clause, but, they can most certainly be investigated for any criminal offence they allegedly commit while in office.  This was the case of FAWEHINMI VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLIC & 2 ORS.22


As men and women saddled with specialized responsibilities and functions of security, intelligence and investigations, this ground breaking case will be of particular interest regarding the scope and interpretation of the subject under discussion.  The facts of the case are briefly as follows:  


The Plaintiff, Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN had petitioned the Inspector General of Police alleging the commission of a crime against the person of the Governor of Lagos State.  The petitioner invited the Inspector General of Police to investigate the allegation contained in his petition pursuant to its powers under section 4 of the Police Act.  The IGP in his wisdom or otherwise replied to the petition citing section 308(1) of the Constitution as preventing him or the police from carrying out an investigation against the sitting Governor. 


Not satisfied with this reply, the petitioner went to court claiming declarations and order of mandamus compelling the Respondents by themselves, their agents, servants and privies to investigate the complaints submitted by the Applicant.  The Federal High Court, in a considered opinion, held that the allegation of crime against the Governor could not be investigated by the Police by virtue of section 308(1) of the Constitution which granted immunity from criminal investigation against the President, the Vice President, the Governor and the Deputy Governor. 


But quare!, from the wordings of section 308 of the Constitution, does the Constitution really prevent the investigation of allegation of crime? No, it does not. We shall see this very shortly. 


Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN, the indefatigable anti-corruption crusader will not have no for an answer. This he demonstrated by promptly appealing against the judgment to the Court of Appeal contending that;

i         “The learned  trial judge erred in law in holding that the Respondents are Constitutionally barred by section 308 of the Constitution from investigating allegations of crime made by the Appellant against the Governor.

ii       That the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that investigation by the Nigerian Police Force into criminal allegations against a governor amounts to legal proceedings. iii That the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that section 308 of the Constitution confers immunity on the Governor of a state against investigation into criminal allegations against him.” 


The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the lower court and held pointedly that under section (4) of the Police Act, the Police has the duty to detect crime. Implicit in that duty is the duty to investigate complaints on the commission of crimes. Furthermore, the court held that section 308 of the Constitution does not help or protect the persons covered under the section from Police investigation.  That the use of the word “proceedings” after civil or criminal” in section 308 (1) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear that what the draftsmen had in mind was proceedings in court. 


The Court of Appeal rejected the interpretation of the lower court that legal investigation of any matter more often than not usually leads to legal proceedings.  Their Lordships stated that the meaning ascribed to the said provision (by the lower court) is too extensive and wide.  In his contribution Aderemi JCA (as he then was) at page 528 of the report stated and I quote. 


Under the provision of section four (4) of the Police Act, the Police has inter alia, the duty to detect crime.  In the performance of that all important duty, the police in trying to discover whether or by whom, an offence has been committed, he is entitled to question any person (emphasis mine) whether suspected or not from whom he thinks that useful information may be obtained.  That very act of the police is called investigation” 23

 The learned justice rejected the interpretation of the lower court that such an investigation will offend the provisions of section 308(1) because the investigation will lead to the arrest of the Governor and his eventual prosecution.

It is to be noted, borrowing the opinion of the Court of Appeal on this point, that when section 4 enjoins the Police to investigate, it only demands from the police the verification of the allegation preferred.  In other words, to inquire into the authenticity of the allegation where the allegation is found by the police to be well made and a prima facie case has been made from the process of the investigation, there will be a resort to the court of law for criminal prosecution or proceedings.  The preferment of a former charge in the court of law is the beginning of criminal proceedings and is an offshoot of a criminal investigation carried out by the police. 


Happily, the decision of the Court of Appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court (the highest court of the land) in unmistakable terms. The Supreme Court has held that any of the office holders mentioned in section 308 of the 1999 Constitution can be investigated by the police for any allegation of crime or offence alleged against him. The immunity conferred by section 308 does not confer on any of them immunity from Police investigation.  See generally Fawehinmi Vs. IGP.24  


This is the state of the law in Nigeria today.  I submit with authoritative firmness that nothing stops the law enforcement agents acting under section 4 of the Police Act Cap P19 LFN 2004 which donates the duty to prevent and detect crime, preserve law and order and protect life and property from going after anybody including those covered by the Executive Immunity.  In the same vein, the Police, on the strength of this same law can investigate any allegation of crime of corruption or any other crime whatsoever leveled against the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor. 


For me, criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings in the language of the Constitution is only one of the consequences of criminal investigation. If section 308 forbids criminal prosecution as it is presently constituted, prosecution is not the only consequence of a successful Criminal investigation. The outcome of such criminal investigation, I suggest, can be kept in safe till the public officer is out of office. Better still, the outcome of such criminal investigation can be laid by the investigating agency before the parliament, that is, the National Assembly with respect to the President and the Vice President or the House of Assembly with respect to the Governors and Deputy Governors, to provoke the activation of impeachment process under sections 143 and 188 of the Constitution respectively. The failure of politicians in any of the Houses to take this step can be checkmated by the peoples power through protest or other forms of civil disobedience to force the parliament to do the needful. 


I am fortified in this position by the pronouncement of my law lord Hon. Justice Uwaifo JSC in his contribution to the judgment in Gani Fawehinmi Vs. IGP (supra) when he said;

“That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, going by its provisions, can be investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my view, beyond dispute.  To hold otherwise is to create a monstrous situation whose manifestation may not be fully appreciated until illustrated… the evidence may be useful for impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly may have need of it.  It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office.  But to do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society”.25 


Perhaps the Supreme Court was only confirming the public opinion on this issue vis-à-vis the pervading act of corruption in high places – a cankerworm that all have agreed needs to be comprehensively addressed if Nigeria must see development and its people take advantage of its enormous God given resources.  Everybody, particularly to those of us who belong to the Sociological school of jurisprudence, it would have been unimaginable if the Supreme Court had reinstated the decision of the High Court to the effect that because of the Constitutional immunity a Governor cannot be investigated and the speculative assertion that  “investigation will lead to arrest and prosecution.”


 I know as a matter of law and practice that, not all investigations lead to arrest and prosecution.  As men and women in the security network you also know this too. 


I agree fully with the Lordships of the Supreme Court when they said that:

“Criminal proceedings do not include police investigation as an act.  The findings or the result or conclusions reached eventually in the investigation could.  It is true that the evidence required in the course of police investigation may be used in criminal proceedings and become decisive of their outcome.”

I submit that this decision has clearly whittled down the potency of the immunity clause contained in the Constitution.  We only need to take full advantage of the development in order to forcefully instill discipline, transparency and accountability in Governance. I am therefore going to dwell more on the subject of investigation in order to take full advantage of the judgment.

But before I do that, let me conclude on the scope of the clause by saying that authorities agree that section 308 does not apply to proceedings in election petition cases involving the election of the Governor.  In Alliance for Democracy Vs. Ayodele Fayose No. 1,26    Muri Okunola JCA (Now of blessed memory) said and I quote:

“the provisions of section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are not applicable to confer immunity on a state Governor in an election petition involving his election to preclude the issuance of subpoena on him? Or put in another way, the immunity provided by the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 on a State Governor is put in abeyance when his election is being disputed before an Election Tribunal as to make him amenable to being compelled by the subpoena to tender document(s) or give evidence before the Election Tribunal”.27 

At this juncture, may I say that the issue is not about the challenges of Immunity in our constitutional jurisprudence but about the relevance of Immunity itself, having regards to the nations contemporary experience in governance.  After all, the immunity covers the President, the vice President and 36 State Governors and their Deputies only out of the multitude of political office holders that are in one position of authority or the other.  Even, for the category of people covered by the Immunity, their children, wives and cronies are not in any way covered.  Secondly, the cover is not for life.  It operates only while in office so its effect is to postpone the day of reckoning only. It does not remove it and what more there is no statute of limitation against crime.   


The challenges that we face for me are how to have an effective and functional crime investigation system and effective policing and monitoring of high profile suspects.  How to evolve the necessary political will, courage and determination to punish offenders, irrespective of their social status. How to equip the Police and other specialized investigative agencies such as the ICPC, EFCC and the Special Fraud Unit of the Police in order to have an efficient criminal justice administration system.   


The business of crime investigation has gone far beyond, “face me I face you” interview.  With modern technology an individual can be investigated without him knowing about it.  Gone are the days of “manual” investigations where a suspect is arrested even without sufficient evidence upon which to charge or caution him. The Agencies must in the course of their investigation reach a stage where it becomes apparent to them from evidence gathered by them that there is sufficient cause to believe that an accused has been discovered.   


Added to this is the need for the Law Enforcement Agents to take advantage of the enormous powers donated to them by the Law for credible discharge of their duties and responsibilities. For instance, there is, for the EFCC a general and asset investigation unit established under Section 12 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004 which is charged with the responsibility for the prevention and detection of offences in violation of the provisions of the Act. There is also the provision for identification and tracing of proceeds and properties involved in any offence under the Act.  By virtue of Section 42 of the EFCC Act, the EFCC, I submit can investigate the asset of any person in or out of power suspected to have run foul of not only the EFCC Act itself but also the Money Laundering Act, since most of the ill gotten wealth will constitute an offence under the Money Laundering Law anyway.  


Also, enormous powers are vested in the ICPC and the Special Fraud Unit of the Nigerian Police.  Section 6 of the Act empowers the operatives to where reasonable grounds exist for suspecting that any person has conspired to commit or has committed an offence under the ICPC Act or any other law prohibiting corruption to receive any report, investigate them and in appropriate cases to prosecute the offenders.  


These powers are there. The challenge is to put them to effective and productive use in order to maintain law and order and instill sanity in our political office holders. Still talking above effective and efficient crime investigation, two factors I believe are predominantly responsible for the shoddy and abysmal performance in crime investigation in Nigeria. These are lack of proper funding and Corruption. I won’t bother you to talk about corruption; it is a vice we all know.   


With regards to lack of proper funding, this is what the Tell Magazine of June 6th 2005 – a popular news magazine in Nigeria quoting his interview with a Police officer said.   

“According to the D.P.O. as recent as 1997/1998 corruption in the force was something that was done with utmost discretion and with facts unlike today that policemen on stop and search brazenly demand money from members of the public and sometimes even kill for failure to drop the mandatory N20. But it is no one’s fault.  Previously D.P.O’s received quarterly allocations for the running of their stations while operational materials like statement forms for both complainant and suspect, duplicating papers, biros, files and bail bonds were supplied from the headquarters to the stations.  But suddenly the quarterly allocations stopped.  Initially, we thought it was a temporary thing and D.P.O’s started to bring these things from their pockets but when it persisted, they had to resort to what is now called in the force “Self Generating Fund”

The D.P.O continued in his interview with the Tell Magazine by saying that

“The quarterly allocation was meant for fueling of patrol vehicles for outside investigations, payment of informants and other expenses. It is this money they (The Police Men) take from you that they use to fuel their cars and do all the police work.

The man is not through yet. This was his conclusion

“The day policemen stop collecting this N20.00 you people complained about, police activities will grind to a halt”. 

This is what another D.P.O said

“DPO’s no longer get impress to run their stations, nobody buys them fuel repair their patrol vans and other operational vehicles when they break down. Even when you lose any of your men, you as the DPO have to make the burial arrangement and raise money for taxing your men. The situation is bad”.


Ladies and gentleman, I am not aware of any Police Force of any Nation given this state and circumstances, including a deplorable level of incentive and encouragement that can operate optimally. These are the real challenges and these are the issues that should attract our primary attention. I wonder if the above does not still represent the position even today except perhaps the Policemen serving in Lagos State. I was made to understand that Lagos State through its autonomous Security Fund provides enormously for the Police in terms of provision of equipments, incentives and operational vehicles. 

In conclusion therefore, even, if the immunity clause in the constitution is removed today and I am totally in support of its removal from the constitution, if nothing is done in the direction I have highlighted in this paper to make the system work, abuse and misuse of power will continue unabated.

I thank you for listening.



DELE ADESINA ESQ., SAN





END NOTE



1.       Dele Adesina is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Past General Secretary of Nigerian Bar Association.  A member of the distinguished Body of Benchers and  Principal Counsel in the Chambers of Dele Adesina & Co. 109, Opebi Road, Ikeja, Lagos and 23, Kolda Street, off Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Abuja.



2.       Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.



3.       Section 308(2) Constitution 1999

4.       Section 308(3) of the Constitution 1999

5.       Advanced Learners Dictionary at page 598

6.       Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition Page 752

7.       Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition Page 753

8.       Section 316 Criminal Code deals with the offence of murder which is liable to death penalty.

9.       Which attracts a punishment of 3 years imprisonment.

10.     Quoted in the book - Judicial foot Prints – of Justice C. Oputa by George Oputa page 66

11.     See the paper titled: The Limit of Executive Immunity by Femi Falana Esq.

12.     ibid

13.     (1981) 2 NCLR 349

14.     (1985) 6 NCLR pg 338 at page 342

15.     (1985) 6 NCLR pg 338

16.     (2001) 33 wrn 144

17.     Per Oduyemi JCA Alamieyeseigha Vs. Teiwa (Supra) at page 161

18.     (1974) nscc 542;

19.     (2001) 16 NWLR pt. 740 pg. 670

20.     (2004) 44 WRN pg. 19

21.     Alamieyeseigha V. Teiwa & Ors at page 147

22.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg. 606

23.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 665 pg. 481 particularly at page 528

24.     (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg. 606

25.     See generally (2002) 7 NWLR part 767 pg. 606.

26.     (2004) 26 WRN 34

27.     Quote by Muri Okunola JCA


Reactions: