Legislation (66)
HELD:
"The leg in the issues herein is the challenge of the appellant that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 which has dovetailed into the 2004 Act is not the extant law but rather it is the 2003 Act and so the charge which appellant faced was under a no longer existent law should be quashed.
HELD:
"It seems to me that the grouse of the appellant's learned counsel is that the trial Court was wrong in trying the appellant under the 2000 Act which according to him, is non-existent in view the much later Act of 2004 promulgated by the National Assembly.
HELD:
"It is an established principle of law that where a law provides for a procedure for doing an act, that procedure must be followed for the subsequent act to be valid.
HELD:
"It is trite law that jurisdiction of the court cannot easily be wished away hence courts guard their jurisdiction jealously as the right of access to court is constitutional.
HELD:
"An accused person charged for an offence can only be charged under the law that creates the offence. Such a law must be in force at the time the offence was committed. There is no provision in our Constitution to charge an accused person under a law that was not in existence at the time the conduct complained off manifested, or to create an offence to crirnimalise a conduct after the act.
HELD:
"It is correct, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, that the Appellant can only be charged and prosecuted for an offence under an existing statute: OSADEBAY v. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.169) 525.
HELD:
"The impeachment panel has power only to find that the allegations against the Governor are proved or not proved. See section 188(8) and (9) of the Constitution. The panel has no power to find the Governor guilty of the allegations of gross misconduct. When a Governor in this case the 2nd respondent is impeached for embezzlement of funds, clearly a criminal offence, he should be taken before a competent court of law or the Code of Conduct Tribunal to face prosecution." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC) Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (P. 114, paras. C-F)
FACTS:
"Let me start by stating that generally in a democratic setting such as ours there are three arms of government which are supposed to be independent of each other, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Each arm of the government has its own specific role. Here, I am concerned with the legislature. The main function of the legislative arm of government is to make laws either by making new laws or changing or amending the existing ones. By virtue of Section 4 (1) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) the legislative powers the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in the National Assembly for the Federation while the legislative powers of a State within the Federation shall be vested in the House of Assembly of the State. Section 4 (2) and (3) specifically State the matters on which the National Assembly shall exercise its powers to make laws to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.
"Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes makes allowance [see 12th Edn. (1969) p.25]. The learned author said- "It is a fundamental rule of English law (I make bold to say - also of our law) that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication." Per Eso, J.S.C. (P.62, Paras.A-C) MR. SALAMI AFOLABI & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS.(1985) LPELR-196(SC)
"Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes makes allowance [see 12th Edn. (1969) p.25]. The learned author said- "It is a fundamental rule of English law (I make bold to say - also of our law) that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication." Per Eso, J.S.C. (P.62, Paras.A-C) MR. SALAMI AFOLABI & ORS. V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS.(1985) LPELR-196(SC)