You have no items in your shopping cart.
ABSTRACT
The Courts are constitutionally garbed with the toga of adjudication. The general powers of the Nigeria Courts under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution is tripartite in nature. It involves the resolution of disputes between citizens on the one hand, citizens and the government on the other hand and between different levels and arms of government. The power of the Nigerian Courts under section 6 of the 1999 constitution incorporates inherent powers which enable the Courts to punish offenders for contempt and powers to issue suitable orders to enable it to do justice to all. The Courts appear to have extended the frontiers of its inherent powers to enable it adjudicate on matters it ordinarily does not have jurisdiction.
The general power of the court to adjudicate on disputes is not without some recognized constitutional fetters. Some of the Constitutional limitations of the jurisdiction of courts include preclusion from determination of any question relating to chapter two of the 1999 constitution as amended, questions relating to acts of military governments and questions relating to legislative processes involving impeachment of chief Executives. Appreciating the delicate nuances of impeachment processes in Nigeria, the supreme court of Nigeria took the view that the ouster provision of section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution as amended can only be invoked when there is compliance with all the constitutional procedures under the said section. Thus, the jurisdiction of the court exists only for the determination of the question whether or not laid down constitutional procedures were followed. This logically presupposes that the jurisdiction of the court can only be convoked upon completion of the proceedings. Consequently, the aim of this work is to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of the recent acts of courts in granting ex parte applications and orders halting impeachment proceedings. One question the work seeks to address is: At that point what does the court seek to determine as being the substantive question before it in view of section 188(10) 1999 Constitution as amended? In achieving this set goal, this paper adopts the doctrinal research approach and recommends that the courts desist from interfering with impeachment proceedings. It recognizes that the only judicial interplay in the impeachment scheme exists majorly with the provision requiring the Chief Judge to set up investigative panel.
It adopts a cross-jurisdictional analysis of impeachment proceedings and concludes on the note that Governors facing impeachment threats can be saved only by virile and independent Chief Judges of States.
The work finds that Courts are in the habit of issuing orders which have the effect of terminating impeachment proceedings. It thus posits that the courts must refrain from interfering with impeachment proceedings same being a political affair.
