TOTAL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (NIG) LTD v. OKWU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62623(SC)
Issue
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S)
Whether a joint application can be filed by more than one person to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
“… it is not correct law that two or more persons cannot jointly file one application for the enforcement of their respective fundamental rights alleged to have been breached or violated by a common act of one or more respondents.
It is true that Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 say that “any person” who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution to which he is entitled has been, is being or likely to be infringed, may apply to Court for redress.
It is also correct that the word ‘person’ is in the singular. However, it is an elementary universal rule of statutory construction that where the singular is used in a statute it includes the plural and vice-versa except it is expressly stated otherwise.
Thus, in the case of Public Citizen, Inc. Vs Mineta 340 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003) where a statute provided for the provision of warning systems that indicate “when a tire is significantly under inflated”, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held that the Act’s “a tire” plainly meant one tire, two tires, three tires, or all four tires, under the elementary rule of statutory construction that the singular (“a tire”) includes the plural (“tires”).
This principle is captured in Section 14(b) of the Interpretation Act, 1964 which reads that “in an enactment, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.”
By Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, the Interpretation Act is an Act of the National Assembly which has been incorporated by reference into the Constitution and Section 318(4) of Constitution provides explicitly that the “Interpretation Act shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution.” (underlining for emphasis)
These positions were confirmed by this Court in the case of Saraki Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt 1500) 5371.
What these translate to is that the word “person” used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 admits the plural and can be interpreted as referring to more than one person.
Additionally, in the case of Texaco Panama Incorporation (Owners of the Vessel M.V. Star Tulsa) Vs Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt 759) 209, this Court held that the word ‘any’ when used in a statute has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate ‘all’ or ‘every’ as well as ‘some’ or ‘one’ and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute.
In other words, the word ‘any’ may mean ‘some’, ‘out of many’, or ‘an indefinite number’ or ‘one’.
Thus, the phrase “any person” used in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009 can be interpreted to mean multiple persons.” Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Pp 33 – 36 Paras F – E)
✍️ C.K. ANYANWU ESQ
PUBLICITY SECRETARY,
NBA, ABA BRANCH.