CORAM

---

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole JCA

Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko JCA

Okon Efreti Abang JCA

---

PARTIES

---

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

2. THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

3. THE NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, ARMED FORCES LAWS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, INTERPRETATION, LABOUR LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The trial Court was the Federal High Court, Abuja Division. The Appellant as plaintiff sought for a declaration that the provisions of Regulation 126 & 127 of the Nigeria Police Regulations made pursuant to the Police Act, Cap 19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 regarding unmarried pregnant woman police officers and pregnant married woman police officers violently contravenes the express provisions of Articles, 2, 3, 5, 18 & 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and therefore unlawful, null and void, the provisions of Sections 4(a) & 140(6) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, and therefore null and void, the express provisions of Sections 37 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

The 1st Respondent joined issues with the Appellant via a counter-affidavit filed on the 23rd March, 2021. After taking the arguments of counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered a judgment as aforesaid on the 21st February, 2022 wherein the Appellant’s action was dismissed for lacking in merit.

Dissatisfied by the decision, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial Court erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it failed to make any pronouncement on the inconsistency of Regulations 126 and 127 of the Nigeria Police Regulations with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right but held that Regulation 127 of the Nigeria Police Regulations cannot be invalidated as it is not in violation of the interest of public order or morality?

2. Whether the trial Court erred in law when it held that a grant of the reliefs of the Appellant will lower the moral and professional standard of the Force as the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria do not provide any protection for pregnant unmarried police officers and the Appellant’s interpretation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is to promote absurdity or mislead the public?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER STATUTES OR LEGISLATIONS

---

It is widely accepted that unambiguous words of legislations are to be accorded their literal ordinary meanings. See NBN LTD VS. OPEOLA (1994) 1 NWLR (PT. 319) 126. AKINFOSILE VS. IJOSE (1960) SCN LR 447; MACAULAY VS. RZB AUSTRA (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 852) 286 and ATIKU & ANOR VS INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-61556(SC) at 273. In approaching the interpretation of words of the Constitution, however, Courts must be expansive in their construction. The inclination must be towards the broader interpretation instead of the narrow alternative unless it is obvious that the legislative intention would be better achieved with the narrow interpretation. The Supreme Court per IDIGBE, JSC emphasized the enormity of the responsibility of the Court in this direction thus:

“it is the duty of this Court which has the ultimate responsibility of declaring and interpreting provisions of the Constitution always to bear in mind that the Constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the Legislature and not merely an Act which declares what the law is. Accordingly, where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense the Court should always lean where the justice of the case so demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the context or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out its object and purpose.”

This point was also restated by the Apex Court in DIRECTOR OF SSS & ANOR VS. AGBAKOBA (1999) LPELR-954 (SC) at 42-43 per OGWUEGBU, JSC. In dealing with the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, however, while not being unmindful that the stated rights may be qualified as well stated by OPUTA, JSC in OSAWE & ORS VS REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS (1985) LPELR-2792(SC) at 28, it is imperative that the protected rights be interpreted as will accord with the values of a humane and civilized democratic society where the rule of law prevails. – Per J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA

 

---

RIGHTS – WHETHER INDIVIDUALS CAN WAIVE PUBLIC RIGHTS WHICH ACCORD WITH THE DEMANDS OF A FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND HUMANE SOCIETY

---

The argument that the deprivation involved were consented to by prospective female police officers who cannot subsequently complain flies in the face of the constitutional provisions expressly granting them the rights involved as citizens of this country. The rights given go beyond those for the personal benefit of the individuals involved as could be waived by them. They are public rights which accord with the demands of a fair, equitable and humane society. These are standards and values demanded of modern nations and which are outside the purview of any individual to waive. See ARIORI & ORS VS ELEMO & ORS (1983) LPELR-552(SC). – Per J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA

 

---

CONSTITUTION – WHERE ANY LAW IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

---

I therefore hold that the said Regulations 126 and 127 are inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 37 and 42 of the Constitution and are therefore null and void to the extent of their inconsistency pursuant to Section 1(3) of the Constitution. – Per J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Nigeria Police Regulations

3. Police Act, Cap 19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

4. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratifications and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9), LFN, 2004

5. Sex Discrimination Act of Australia, 1984,

6. United Nations Convention on the elimination of any form of discrimination against women

7. Equality Act, 2010 of the United Kingdom

8. United Nations International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT