SALIHU HONG VS THE STATE
September 1, 2025BOLA ETUWEWE AND ANOR VS SUNDAY ETUWEWE AND ETUWEWE
September 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1963-06) Legalpedia 31625 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Sun Jun 26, 1966
Suit Number: SC 99/1964
CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ONYEAMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO
APPELLANTS
SARKI AND THE ATTORNEY
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
Constitutional Law-Fundamental human right-right to be defended- interpretation of Statute
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of UdoUdoma, J., dated the 10th December, 1962, dismissing the claim of the plaintiff, which was-“(1) for a declaration that (a) the plaintiff is entitled under the Nigeria (Constitution) Order-in-Council to be defended in the Charge No. LA/68C/1962 in which he is the 27th accused person by Mr E. F. N. Gratiaen Q.C., or any other counsel of the plaintiffs choice whether British or indigenous.
HELD
The Minister had an absolute discretion to prohibit his entry and that the provision of the Constitution recognises the legality of the Immigration Act and the right of the plaintiff has not been breached.
ISSUES
Whether section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance ought to be read down on the basis that the plaintiff is right in claiming that s.21 (5) (c) of the Constitution of the Federation entitles him to bring into Nigeria for his defence a legal practitioner who was neither a native nor a citizen of Nigeria.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
QUALIFICATION TO AN ACCUSED PERSON’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE
‘It is clear that any legal representative chosen must not be under a disability of any kind. He must be someone who, if outside of Nigeria, can enter the country as of right; and he must be someone enroled to practice in Nigeria.’ Per- Ademola, C.J.N
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
