LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fundamental Rights — Retroactive Penal Legislation Prohibited — Conviction for Act Not Constituting Offence at Time Committed Void
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When an inferior tribunal acts in disregard of the ex post facto clause, the person affected has a remedy under section 46 of the 1999 Constitution. If a tribunal had no jurisdiction to try and convict, the High Court approached under fundamental rights procedure has an obligation to enforce the protection.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in FRN & Anor v. Ifegwu (2003) NLC-1152002(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A.
"The position of the law, as I understand it is that when an inferior tribunal or court acts in complete disregard of ex post facto clause, [similar to section 33(8) of the 1979 Constitution] either through inadvertence or misconception, the person affected has a remedy under section 46 of the 1999 Constitution. In that regard, it becomes irrelevant in the present action whether or not the issue of jurisdiction was pursued by the respondent or ruled upon by the Tribunals. If indeed the Failed Banks Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try and convict the respondent of that offence, that status of the Tribunal remains a fundamental question, and a High Court which is approached on that basis under the Fundamental Rights Procedure to enforce the protection given under section 33(8) has an obligation to do so."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Conviction for an act that was not an offence at the time is void. The principle applies to constitutional law. The High Court has jurisdiction under section 46 to enforce this protection. The rule prohibits ex post facto criminalisation. The court will nullify such convictions. The principle is well-established.
