Contributor: OLUGBADE JOHNSON ABIOLA
INTRODUCTION
The question of whether or not Locus Standi is necessary in public interest litigation is one which has generated a lot of argument both for and against, particularly regarding its implications for accessibility to justice and the protection of public interests. Proponents argue that a flexible approach to locus standi allows broader participation in legal proceedings, enabling individuals and groups to address systemic issues that affect marginalized communities. Conversely, critics contend that a lack of clear standing requirements may lead to frivolous claims, undermining judicial efficiency and the seriousness of legal proceedings. Ultimately, the debate centres on balancing the need for effective legal remedies with the integrity of the judicial process
This article therefore seeks to examine what public interest litigation is all about, the requirement that must be fulfilled to succeed in it, the meaning of locus standi, and whether a Claimant instituting a public interest litigation must be clothed with the requisite locus standi to be able to institute and maintain the action.
NEXUS BETWEEN LOCUS STANDI AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Locus standi is a Latin term, meaning ‘place of standing’. According to the Oxford dictionary, it is the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. It is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law[1]. Locus Standi” is an issue which goes to jurisdiction. In determining ”Locus Standi’; the Court’s judicial powers are being invoked and the matters in which judicial powers can be exercised are as contained in the provisions of Section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Indeed, the rule about ‘locus standi” evolved primarily to protect the courts from being used as a playing ground by professional litigants, meddlers, interlopers, prank-players and other cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject-matter of the litigation they profess to be interested in.[2]
The Supreme Court of Nigerian defined public interest as the general welfare of a section of the public that warrants recognition and protection. It is something in which the public as a whole has a stake, especially an interest that justifies government regulation.[3] It was also defined as a society’s wellbeing in matters of health, safety, order, morality, economic and politics[4].
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines litigation as the process of carrying on a lawsuit.[5]Public interest litigation is a case or petition filed before a court to protect, safeguard or enforce public interest.
Locus standi in a public interest litigation therefore means the right or legal basis on which one can bring an action that affects the interest of the public.[6]
The law is trite that a person instituting an action must have the locus standi to do so and this is so even in public interest litigations.[7] Locus standi plays an important role here as it determines who can initiate legal action to protect the rights and interests of the broader public. Traditionally, locus standi requirements limited access to courts to only those directly affected by an issue. However, public interest litigation has relaxed those requirements, allowing concerned citizens and organisations to file cases on behalf of the disadvantaged public.[8]
WHO CAN INITIATE A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
The right to initiate any action in a court in Nigeria is tied to locus standi. For a PIL, such right can be exercised either by virtue of an office held, e.g the Attorney general of the federation or that of any state and any other person who has sufficient interest in the subject matter.[9]
WHAT CONFERS LOCUS ON A PERSON TO INSTITUTE A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
It is a well-established principle of law decided in a plethora of cases that a general interest common to all members of the public is not a litigable interest and cannot accord standing to a particular member. However, the principle of law is not in its rule but in its exception. There are instances when a person may be permitted by the Court to institute a public interest litigation. His Lordship, ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, JCA in GARKI & ORS v. INEC & ORS[10] held that all the parties herein, are agreed that a litigant has to show sufficient interest, before he can have the locus standi to sue in a public interest litigation. The opium upon which a person is endowed with judicial recognizance to institute a public interest litigation is when he has shown the Court that in the circumstances that has sufficient interest.
The Court seeks to protect itself from being in the tussle by meddlers and interlopers who are bereaved of the legal standing to institute an action. It is by conduct required that a party seeking to institute an action on behalf of the general public must show sufficient interest before he will be robed of locus to sue. As a matter of law, the issue of sufficient interest was taken up in FAWEHINMI VS. PRESIDENT FRN [11]where it was decided, that it is only when the plaintiff suffers a special damage over and above that of the members of the public, that he can have the locus. The Court rightly said that that partial interest will be a disqualification as only sufficient interest will warrant a person to be clothed with locus to institute an action.
Secondly, in order for a litigant to have the locus standi to sue, he needs to show that there exists a live controversy between the parties. The litigant must a cause of action that arose and the dispute in motion.[12]
Third, the issue in dispute must be general or public in nature and void of any exclusive personal gain. Also, the Court must be satisfied that the party seeking redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship arising from the litigation. If the Judge is satisfied that he will so suffer, then he must be heard, as he is entitled to be heard. A party who is in imminent danger of any conduct of the adverse party has the locus standi to commence action.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE LOCUS STANDI
In the circumstance that a litigant has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. This is because the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, as I have found in this case, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies its jurisdiction to determine the action. The proper order to be made in such a situation therefore is to strike out the claim.[13] The failure to establish locus standi to institute public interest litigation goes to the root of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
It has been well established that a person must have sufficient interest in the subject matter before one can be robed with the locus to institute a public interest litigation. If a plaintiff fails to prove locus standi, the court may dismiss the case for lack of standing. This ensures that only those with a genuine stake in the outcome are allowed to participate in the litigation.
REFERENCE
- NBC Plc v Ezeifo (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 726) 11 ↑
- Christine O Ike. The Exclusionary Principle of Locus Standi: An Obstacle to Justice in Public Interest Environmental Litigation in Nigeria. Available at https://www.journals.ezenwaohaetorc.org/index.php/ULJ/article/viewFile/2840/2976 accessed on 26 September 2024. ↑
- Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR, pg 519 ↑
- DA Kabirikim & Anor v Hon Justice Luke Emefor & Ors. (2009) 14 NWLR. Pg 603 ↑
- Black’s law Dictionary 9th Edition ↑
- Chief F.O. Orbih. Public Interest Litigation. Paper Presented at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies on 7th July, 2010. Available at https://nigerianlawguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PUBLIC-INTEREST-LITIGATION.pdf accessed on 26 September 2024. ↑
- Chief Sebastine Tar. Hon, SAN, FCIArb V. National Assembly & 3 ORS NICN/ABJ/142/2022. Available at https://nicnadr.gov.ng/nicnweb/details.php?id=7196&p=Chief%20Sebastine%20Tar%20Hon%20SAN%20-VS-%20National%20Assembly%20&%203%20ORS accessed on 26 September 2024. ↑
- Alex Cyril Ekeke. Liberalization of the Rule on Locus Standi before Nigerian Courts: Lessons from India. Cambridge University Press, Journal of African Law Vol 66 No 2. Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/liberalization-of-the-rule-on-locus-standi-before-nigerian-courts-lessons-from-india/3FC11CBF41054A566A4FCDD5AF814832 accessed on 26 September 2024. ↑
- National Assembly V. Accord & 2 Ors (2021) 18 NWLR C.A. ↑
- (2013) LPELR-20488(CA) ↑
- (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt 1054) 275 ↑
- GARKI & ORS v. INEC & ORS (2013) LPELR-20488(CA) ↑
- EMEZI v. OSUAGWU & ORS (2005) LPELR-1130(SC) ↑
