Navigating the Constitutional Divide: State vs. Federal High Court Jurisdictions in Nigeria

Recently, the Rivers State High Court in Port Harcourt issued an interim injunction restraining Rivers State House of Assembly lawmakers from parading themselves as legislators. As a legal scholar, my attention has been drawn by several quarters to provide a scholarly opinion in this regard as per the provisions of the constitution.
In response to the queries above, I have made a thorough analysis examining the jurisdictional boundaries between the State High Court and the Federal High Court in Nigeria, as outlined in the 1999 Constitution and its subsequent amendments. The study delves into the provisions of Section 272, which grants the State High Court broad jurisdiction over civil and criminal proceedings, and Section 251, which confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court over specific matters, including those related to the tenure of state legislators, governors, and deputy governors.
The analysis highlights the 2010 First Alteration Act, which further clarified that the Federal High Court has the exclusive authority to determine questions about the cessation or vacancy of office for these state-level officials. Based on these constitutional provisions, the paper concludes that the order issued by the Rivers State High Court, declaring the seats of 27 state lawmakers vacant, would likely be considered void ab initio, as the State High Court lacks the constitutional jurisdiction to make such a declaration. The study emphasises the need for careful interpretation and application of the complex interplay between the jurisdictions of the state and federal high courts in Nigeria.
While Section 251 and other parts of the Constitution apply, Section 272(1) says that the High Court of a State can hear and decide on any civil case that questions the existence or scope of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation, or claim. It can also hear and decide on any criminal case that questions any penalty, forfeiture, punishment, or other liability for a crime committed by someone. Section 272, Subsection (2) states, “The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the proceedings that originate in the High Court of a State and those that are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.”
Section 251(1) states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters.” The section then outlines various matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, including those related to the tenure of office of state-level officials.
The First Alteration Act of 2010 further amended Section 272 by inserting a new subsection 3, which states, “Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of a member of the House of Assembly of a State, a Governor, or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant.”
Interpretations: Before the First Alteration to the Constitution, subsection (3) (that is, Section 272(3)) and its clause were not in the constitution. It is very clear that the intention of including 272(3) is to clearly assign jurisdiction to the Federal High Court and to avoid conflict and misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 251 as regards the State High Courts and the Federal High Court.
Just ask yourself logically, since the High Court (State and Federal) has unlimited jurisdiction to matters related to this issue in the Constitution without the 272(3), why then will the 272(3) of the Alteration Act 2010 of the Constitution insert: “Subject to the provisions of 251 and other provisions (this is directing provisions in section 251 and other provisions that have or may have caused conflict of understanding that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction) of this constitution, the Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of a member of the House of Assembly of a State, a Governor, or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant.”? This clause can simply be interpreted as an exclusive clause to assign exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in any sound jurisprudential analysis.
On every occasion, the power to determine the position of an Assembly Member of a State House of Assembly, Deputy Governor, or Governor by courts (in Nigeria), impliedly or explicitly, the court refers to the Federal High Court specifically and not the State High Court.
In *INEC v. DPP & Anor (2014)*, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that it is only the Federal High Court that can determine the question as to whether the seat of a House of Assembly has become vacant. Also, see the case of Ofobruku v. DPP & Anor (2015) LPELR-24899(CA) per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA.
Based on the interpretation of the constitutional provisions above, the conclusion was made:
1. Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) gives the State High Court jurisdiction to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings, including matters relating to legal rights, duties, and obligations.
2. However, Section 251(1) of the Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court over certain matters, including those related to the tenure of office of members of the State House of Assembly, the Governor, and the Deputy Governor.
3. The First Alteration Act of 2010 amended Section 272 by inserting a new subsection 3, which states that the Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions on whether the term of office of a member of the State House of Assembly, Governor, or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant.
Given these provisions, the Rivers State High Court’s order declaring the seats of 27 lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly vacant would likely be considered void ab initio (invalid from the beginning). This is because exclusive jurisdiction over such matters lies with the Federal High Court and not the State High Court, as per the clear provisions of Section 251(1) and the First Alteration Act.
Therefore, the Rivers State High Court would not have the constitutional authority to make such a declaration, as this power is reserved for the Federal High Court under the current legal framework. Such an order by the State High Court would be ultra vires (beyond its powers) and therefore invalid.
The position of the law is not meant to be interpreted with sentiment.
– Abraham Ebini, a lawyer, wrote from Port Harcourt.