Before you read further, kindly note that i'm not an enemy of progress and will never support the continuation of this strike. Mine is just to explain the position of the law on the suit as a concern law student. So, i will not tolerate any hate speech from anybody. 



PURELY OPINION:

You see, it is not just a fact, but the fact, that our laws in Nigeria rested squarely on pages of code. As a result, for any suit to succeed in any court of law, compliance with rules is a must. This is exactly what is lacking in the recent suit file by LAWSAN president against Asuu and two other defendants. The suit cannot succeed for the following reasons.

1. IMPROPER MODE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION: The suit instituted by LAWSAN president was commenced via writ of summon. This is very wrong. In the statement of claim, reliance was placed on the provision of section 18 CFRN 1999 and Article 17 of the African Charter of Human anf peoples right. By this, it is not in doubt that the suit is a fundamental right action. The claimant seek to enforce the right of Nigerian student to freedom of education. Now, the law is settled that an action on fundamental right can only be commenced via originating motion. You can only commence an action via writ of summon when fact are in dispute. Fundamental right action is purely a mixture of both question of law and fact. 

2. LACK OF LOCUS STANDI: The LAWSAN president is suing in a representative capacity. But did he satisfied the essential requirements for an action to stand in representative capacity? The answer is in the negative. In the case of *CHEIF UGBOR OFIA & ORS. V. CHEIF ISAIAH MBA EJEM & ORS (2006) LPELR-2266 (SC),* the supreme court listed the essentials requirements for people who desire to sue in representative capacity to include the following:  

(a) There must be numerous persons interested in the case or the side to be represented. 

(b) All those interested must have the same interest in the suit i.e there interest must be joint and several

(C) All of them must have the same grievances

(d) The proposed representative must be one of them

(e) All the reliefs sought must be in its nature beneficial to all the persons being represented 


While some will still argue that the LAWSAN president satisfy the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th requirements (Even with many controversies on it), there shouldn't be any argument on the 3rd requirement. Mr president is suing on behalf of the entire law students in Nigeria. But the question is, did we all have the same grievances? What about some private and state universities that are not under Asuu? Can we reasonable say thay they share same grievances with us when in fact,they are not affected by the lingering strike? The answers are surely in the negative. Mr president should have sue unbehalf of students studying in university under Asuu. By that, the persons involved will have the same grievances. Also, the case would have been more proper if the case was instituted by NANS.

Even the 5th requirement was not complied with because some private and state universities does not have any benefit to gain from must of the reliefs sought for with the exception of the monetary compensation. Or of what use will the relief to end strike be beneficial to some university that are not under Asuu? Having failed to satisfied this requirements, he can't sue in a representative capacity.

And again, inclusion of Asuu president in the suit is very confusing. Asuu is a Union with the legitimate right to embark on strike if the Federal government refuse to grant their request. I wonder how you can sue them for exercising their right as a union. If their right infringes upon the students right to education, the appropriate body to hold responsible is the federal government who denied us the right to education by not complying with Asuu request (even if the former claim from the federal government is not legitimate) 

3. LACK OF JURISDICTION: Funny enough, the claimant approach Federal high court in a suit which involve chapter 2 of 1999 constitution. Those rights under chapter 2 are not actionable in Nigerian court. You can only approach ECOWAS court in a suit of this nature. Although Article 17 of African charter is inclusive in the suit, but you and i know how the national court is often reluctant to entertain matters on international treaties even where same is domesticated. The must appropriate court to approach is ECOWAS court. 

Another funny thing is the monetary compensation of 10bn. Even if the suit succeed, abeg how will you compel Asuu to pay this money? Perhaps they are thinking of enforcing the judgement by instituting garnishee proceeding. This surely will not work because Asuu can't afford the money. Well, the federal government is among the defendant. They can stroke them in the throat to collect the money. But then, i trust President Muhammadu Buhari on that issue(smile) 

In all, the suit is not meritorious and wi surely fail. I understand the concern of the Mr president and i will not blame him for instituting this case. Perhaps, he did that to threaten Asuu to end the lingering strike.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post