A.G. FEDERATION VS A.G. 36 STATES

CORAM

M.L. UWAIS

OLAJIDE OLATAWURA., JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.I. IGUH

M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

A.B. WALI

PARTIES

A.G. OF THE FEDERATION APPELLANTS

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & 35 STATES RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

There arose a dispute between the Federal Government and the eight littoral States as to the Southern (or seaward) boundary of each of these States. The Federal Government contends that the southern (or seaward) boundary of each of these States is the low-water mark of the land surface of such State or, the seaward limit of inland waters within the State, as the case so requires. The Federal Government, therefore, maintains that natural resources located within the Continental Shelf of Nigeria are not derivable from any State of the Federation. The eight littoral States do not agree with the Federal Governments contentions. Each claims that its territory extends beyond the low-water mark onto the territorial water and even onto the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone. In order to resolve this dispute, the plaintiff took out a writ of summons for claims against the Federal Government.

HELD

The Plaintiff’s claim succeeded and It was held that the seaward boundary of a littoral State within the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the purpose of calculating the amount of revenue accruing to the Federation Account directly from any natural resources derived from that State pursuant to the provisions of section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is the low-water mark of the land surface of the coastal land of the State or (as in the case of Cross River State) the seaward limits of the inland waters within the State.

ISSUES

What is the procedure for making provision for the formula for distributing the amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account pursuant to section 162 of the Constitution. Whether it is competent for any Defendant to counter-claim for a relief which raises the same or substantially the same question or questions which arise in the Plaintiffs action. Whether it is lawful for moneys intended for Local Governments or for purposes of primary education to be paid to any person or authority other than the State Government.