“The general principle is that if the provision of the amendment is an enactment of substantive law then the operation thereof cannot be retrospective and must be prospective. However, if the amendment is a matter of procedure then in that case its operation is retrospective. A law is said to be “prospective”, as opposed to “retrospective”, when it is applicable only to cases that will arise after its enactment. Whilst a retrospective law is one that is to take effect, in point of time, before it was passed. There is a presumption that the Legislature does not intend what is unjust, so Courts lean against giving certain statutes retrospective operation. They are construed as operating only in cases or on facts, which come into existence after the statutes were passed, unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended? see Afolabi V. Gov., of Oyo State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 74 SC. See also Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Ed., wherein it is stated as follows:– Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than thus: that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to [its] language. If the enactment is expressed in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. The rule has – – two aspects, for it, “involves another and subordinate rule, to the effect that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation that its language renders necessary”. Per AUGIE, J.S.C. at P. 5, Paras. D-F.
BELLO BARAU GUSAU v. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (2019-LCER-36843-SC)
Facts
In his bid to become the first Respondent’s Gubernatorial Candidate for Zamfara State at the 2015 General Elections, the Appellant bought the Expression of Interest Form of the Party for N500, 000. 00 and paid the mandatory sum of N500, 000, 000.00. However, due to a Petition written against him that he was not a Member of the first Respondent, the Appellant was not allowed to participate in the Primary Election. Whereupon, Appellant took out an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court, which he later amended, with the leave of Court. In the Amended Originating Summons, he presented four Questions, and sought four main and two alternative Reliefs.
Apart from the second Respondent, who did not enter appearance or file any processes, and fourth Respondent, who entered appearance, but did not file any processes, the first and third Respondents not only filed their respective Counter-Affidavits to the Originating Summons, the two of them also filed Notices of Preliminary Objection challenging the competency of the Suit on the ground inter alia that the Appellant lacked locus standi to institute same and the Court had no jurisdiction.
In his Judgment delivered on 8/12/2015, the learned trial Judge, Anyadike, J., upheld the said Objections, and concluded as follows: –
The reliefs against 1st – 3rd Defendants center on pre-primary election matters and which is entirely the affairs of the 1st Defendant and not justiciable before this Court and as such I lack Jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought against the 4th Defendant which is only ancillary. On the above Principal (sic), the Objections of the 1st and 3rd Defendants are hereby sustained. Since the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to approach the Court in the first place, and since the matter is not justiciable coupled with the fact that this Court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain same, the matter ends there and there is no need to look into the merits.
The Appellant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed his Appeal in its Judgment delivered on 7/12/2017, stating that the decision arrived at by the learned trial Judge is unassailable.
The Appellant has now appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal.
Issues
1. The Supreme Court considered whether the amendment to Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution by the 4th Alteration Act No. 21, 2017, affects substantive law or purely procedural matter.
Lead Judge(ment)
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment):
Held
Supreme Court upheld the Preliminary Objection raised by the fourth Respondent and struck out the appeal for being statute barred.
Alternate Citations
Read Full Judgment
Counsel:
Ugo Udoji, Esq. with him, Vincent Odje, Esq……For Appellant
And
Patrick E. Oganwu, Esq. with him, U. O. Sule, Esq., Abdulrazak Alfa, Esq. and Hafsa I. Usman, Esq. for the 1st Respondent.
Muntala Abdulrasheed, Esq. with him, B. S. Kpenkpen, Esq. for 2nd Respondent.
Muhammad K. Ndanusa, Esq. for 3rd Respondent.
Abdul Mohammed, Esq. with him, Sanusi Musa, Esq., Shamsuddeen M. Hussaini, Esq. and Abdulssalam Saleh, Esq. for 4th Respondent…..For Respondent
For Appellant(s)
For 1st Respondent
Counsel’s Photograph(s) Needed.