CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Impeachment — Effect of Vacancies — Section 102 Cannot Override Specific Provisions of Section 188
Principle Statement
By section 102, the proceedings of the House cannot be invalidated by the fact that there is a vacancy in its membership. This seems to be an answer in the appellants' way to the 18 persons who purportedly removed the 3rd respondent. The law is elementary that where the Constitution or a Statute contains a general provision, the specific will prevail over the general provision. In this wise, it is my view that the specific provision of section 188(9) will prevail over the general provision of section 102.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tobi, JSC (adopted by Katsina-Alu, JSC), in Dapianlong & Ors v. Dariye & Anor (2007) NLC-123-39-2007(SC) at pp. 45–46; Paras B–D.
"By section 102, the proceedings of the House cannot be invalidated by the fact that there is a vacancy in its membership. This seems to be an answer in the appellants' way to the 18 persons who purportedly removed the 3rd respondent. The law is elementary that where the Constitution or a Statute contains a general provision, the specific will prevail over the general provision. In this wise, it is my view that the specific provision of section 188(9) will prevail over the general provision of section 102."
Explanation / Scope
Where there is a conflict between a general constitutional provision and a specific one, the specific provision prevails. Section 102 is a general provision about vacancies not invalidating proceedings. Section 188(9) is a specific provision governing impeachment. The specific provision on impeachment overrides the general provision.
