What is the Meaning of section 6 subsection six of Nigeria 1999 constitution. In this article I will like to explain the Meaning of section 6 (6) of 1999 constitution
Related article
Meaning of section 6 (5) of 1999 constitution
Meaning of section 6 (4) of 1999 constitution
Meaning of section 6 (3) of 1999 constitution
Meaning of section 6 (6) of 1999 constitution
The section 6 subsection 6 of Nigeria 1999 constitution power of judiciary stated that
Section 6a
The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section ¨C(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law;
This legal text is stating that:
1 The judicial powers granted to the courts (as mentioned earlier in the section)
2 Include all the inherent powers and sanctions that a court of law typically has
3 This means that the courts have the authority to:
– Hear and decide cases
– Make judgments and orders
– Impose penalties and sanctions
– Exercise all other powers that a court of law normally has
4 This provision overrides any other part of the constitution that might seem to limit the courts’ powers
In simpler terms, this section is emphasizing that the courts have all the necessary powers to function fully and effectively, even if other parts of the constitution might seem to limit their authority. It’s a way of ensuring that the courts can carry out their duties without any unnecessary restrictions.
The key points of these sections are:
1. Judicial Powers Extend Beyond the Constitution:
– The judicial powers described here apply even if they contradict other parts of the constitution.
– In other words, these judicial powers take precedence over conflicting constitutional provisions.
2. Inherent Powers and Sanctions of a Court:
– The judicial powers include all the inherent powers and sanctions (penalties/consequences) that a court of law typically has.
– This gives the courts broad authority to exercise the full range of powers that are normally associated with a court of law.
In summary, this provision is granting the courts expansive, constitutionally-backed powers that cannot be overridden by other parts of the constitution. It’s empowering the courts to exercise the full scope of judicial authority, regardless of potential conflicts with other constitutional clauses.
The intent seems to be to firmly establish the courts’ powers and ensure they can function effectively without being constrained by potentially contradictory constitutional limitations.
Judicial powers vested: This means the courts have the legal power to handle certain matters.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary: This is a legal way of saying that even if other parts of the Constitution seem to limit the courts’ power, this part gives them some additional powers.
Inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law: These are the essential authorities courts need to function effectively. This can include things like:
The power to issue orders and enforce them (like requiring someone to appear in court).
The power to punish for contempt of court (if someone disrupts the court proceedings).
The power to manage their own affairs (like setting their schedules or rules).
In simpler terms, this law ensures the courts have the necessary tools to do their job, even if other parts of the Constitution don’t explicitly mention them.
Here’s an analogy: Imagine a chef who is given an oven to cook with. This law is like saying that even though the oven is the main tool, the chef also has the inherent power to use knives, pots, and other tools necessary for cooking, even if they weren’t specifically mentioned
Section 6b
b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;
This legal text is stating that:
1 The judicial powers of the courts (mentioned earlier)
2 Extend to all types of cases and disputes, including:
– Cases between individuals (persons)
– Cases between the government or any authority and an individual
– Cases related to the rights and obligations of individuals in Nigeria
3 The courts have the power to hear and determine any question or dispute related to:
– Civil rights (such as rights to life, liberty, and property)
– Civil obligations (such as contracts, debts, and liabilities)
In simpler terms, this section is saying that the courts have the authority to handle all types of cases that involve:
– Disputes between individuals
– Disputes between the government or any authority and an individual
– Questions about individual rights and obligations in Nigeria
The courts can hear and decide on any matter that affects a person’s civil rights or obligations, including contracts, debts, property rights, and more.
The judicial powers described here:
1. Apply to All Matters Between People:
– This includes any and all disputes or issues that arise between individual people in Nigeria.
2. Apply to Matters Involving the Government or Authorities:
– These judicial powers extend to any matters or actions involving the government, authorities, or other official bodies in Nigeria.
3. Apply to Determining Civil Rights and Obligations:
– The courts can use these powers to determine and resolve questions about the civil rights and duties of any person in Nigeria.
In essence, this clause is granting the courts very broad jurisdiction. They can exercise these judicial powers to resolve any kind of civil dispute or matter, whether it’s between private citizens, or between citizens and the government or other authorities.
The courts have the ability to make definitive rulings on the civil rights and responsibilities of people in Nigeria, regardless of who the parties involved may be. This gives the judicial system wide-ranging power to adjudicate a vast array of civil issues and controversies.
The intent seems to be to establish the courts as the ultimate arbiter of civil matters, with the ability to make binding decisions that determine the rights and obligations of all people and entities within the country.
This part of the law talks about the broad range of issues these courts can handle.
The courts can hear cases between people and government
People: This means any two individuals or groups in Nigeria can bring a lawsuit against each other in these courts.
Government and People: This allows people to sue the government or other authorities if they believe their rights have been violated.
The cases can involve: Any question about civil rights and obligations: This means the courts can decide on legal disputes involving your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. This could include things like:
Contracts (agreements) between people or businesses
Property disputes (ownership of land or belongings)
Personal injury cases (if someone gets hurt due to someone else’s negligence)
Business disputes
In simpler terms, this law gives these courts the authority to handle a wide variety of legal issues between people and between people and the government, as long as it involves your civil rights and obligations.
Here’s an example: Imagine you sign a contract to buy a car, but the seller doesn’t deliver it. You could take them to one of these courts to sue for breach of contract.
Section 6c
c) shall not, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution;
This legal text is stating that:
1 The judicial powers of the courts (mentioned earlier)
2 Do not extend to certain types of issues or questions, unless otherwise provided for in the Constitution
3 Specifically, the courts cannot decide on:
– Whether any act or omission (action or inaction) by any authority or person
– Whether any law or judicial decision (court ruling)
– Is in line with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy (listed in Chapter II of the Constitution)
In simpler terms, this section is saying that the courts cannot review or judge the constitutionality of:
– Government actions or decisions
– Laws passed by the legislature
– Previous court decisions
Based on whether they align with the fundamental objectives and principles outlined in Chapter II of the Constitution, such as:
– Protection of human rights
– Promotion of social justice
– Ensuring accountability and transparency
Unless explicitly allowed by the Constitution, the courts do not have the power to scrutinize these matters.
This clause is placing a limitation on the judicial powers described earlier. Specifically:
1. The judicial powers do not extend to certain issues or questions, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution itself.
2. These excluded issues or questions are ones that involve:
– Whether any act or omission by an authority or person is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
– Whether any law or judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy are found in Chapter II of the Constitution. This means the courts cannot use the broad judicial powers to rule on whether government actions, laws, or court decisions are aligned with these constitutional principles.
In other words, there is an exception carved out where the courts cannot exercise their wide-ranging authority to evaluate the compliance of official acts, laws, and court rulings with the foundational policy directives laid out in Chapter II of the Constitution.
The intent seems to be to limit the courts’ ability to second-guess or override the government’s adherence to these core constitutional principles, even within the courts’ otherwise expansive jurisdiction. This suggests an effort to maintain a separation of powers between the judicial and other branches of government.
This part of the law deals with what these courts cannot do. Here’s a breakdown:
Courts cannot decide on:
Whether a law, action, or decision violates the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy (Chapter II of the Constitution).
Exceptions: There might be some situations where the courts can still consider these principles, but this law says it’s generally not their job.
Why can’t the courts decide on this?
The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy are like broad goals for the government, not directly enforceable laws. Imagine them as guidelines for how the government should run the country. Courts typically focus on enforcing specific laws, not these broader goals.
Analogy: Imagine a school with a mission statement to “prepare students for success.” This law is saying that a teacher can’t get fired simply because a student doesn’t feel prepared for a test (unless there’s a specific school rule broken).
It’s important to note:
Even though the courts can’t directly enforce these principles, they might still consider them when making other decisions.
The Constitution might have other parts that give the courts more power in this area.
This is a complex legal concept, and this explanation is a simplified version.
Section 6d
shall not, as from the date when this section comes into force, extend to any action or proceedings relating to any existing law made on or after 15th January, 1966 for determining any issue or question as to the competence of any authority or person to make any such law
This legal text is stating that:
1 From the date this section becomes effective
2 The judicial powers of the courts (mentioned earlier)
3 Do not extend to:
– Any legal action or proceedings
– Related to existing laws made on or after January 15, 1966
– That aim to determine:
– Whether any authority or person had the power to make such laws
– Any issue or question related to the competence of that authority or person
4 After this section comes into force, the courts cannot hear cases that challenge:
– The validity of laws made on or after January 15, 1966
– The authority of the person or body that made those laws
These laws are essentially grandfathered in and cannot be challenged in court on the basis of competence or authority. This provision likely aims to prevent legal uncertainty and ensure stability in the legal system.
This clause is placing another limitation on the judicial powers described earlier. Specifically:
1. The judicial powers do not extend to any actions or proceedings related to existing laws made on or after January 15, 1966.
2. This restriction applies to laws that are meant for determining any issue or question about the competence (legal authority) of any person or entity to make such a law.
In essence, this clause exempts a certain category of laws from the broad judicial powers outlined previously. Specifically, it excludes laws created on or after January 15, 1966 that are intended to resolve questions about whether the relevant authorities had the legal competence or authority to enact those laws in the first place.
The courts cannot use their expansive judicial powers to evaluate the validity or legality of these particular types of laws. This suggests an effort to insulate certain legislative actions from judicial review, at least with regards to the competence of the lawmakers.
The intent seems to be to limit the courts’ ability to second-guess or override the government’s own determinations about the legal authority of authorities to create specific laws, even within the courts’ otherwise wide-ranging jurisdiction.
This part of the law deals with a specific situation and limits the power of the courts in a particular way. Here’s a breakdown:
After this section is enacted: This means once this part of the Constitution becomes law.
The courts cannot handle cases about:
The authority (power) of someone or something to create a law.
This applies specifically to laws created after January 15th, 1966.
Why is this limited?
This is likely to prevent legal challenges based on who has the authority to make laws. It streamlines the legal process by assuming whoever made the law after that date had the proper power to do so.
Here’s an analogy: Imagine a company where the CEO has the power to make decisions. This law is saying that after a certain date, employees can’t challenge the CEO’s authority to make those decisions, they can only challenge the decisions themselves.
Important to note:
This only applies to laws created after a specific date. Laws made before January 15th, 1966 might still be challenged based on who had the authority to make them.
There might be other parts of the Constitution that allow the courts to review a law’s validity even under this section (e.g., if the law violates fundamental rights).
This is a specific legal detail, and this explanation is a simplified version.
