LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Legislative Competence — Validity of Military Edicts — Court’s Power to Determine Inconsistency with Constitution
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The court has jurisdiction to pronounce not on the power of a Military Governor to make an Edict, but on whether an Edict is inconsistent with a Decree, the unsuspended provisions of the 1963 Constitution, or any Act of the National Parliament.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Nangibo v. Okafor & Ors (2003) NLC-1391999(SC) at pp. 29–30; Paras D–A.
"The court has always had jurisdiction to pronounce not on the power of a Military Governor to make an Edict, but on whether an Edict so made is inconsistent with a Decree, the unsuspended provisions of the Constitution of 1963 and any Act of the National Parliament."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts can examine consistency of Edicts with superior laws. The principle applies to constitutional law. The validity of the lawmaker’s power is not questioned. The rule allows judicial review of inconsistencies. The court will strike down inconsistent Edicts. The principle is well-established.
