Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:07:49.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights Enforcement by People Living in Poverty: Access to Justice in Nigeria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2010

Eva Brems  and
Charles Olufemi Adekoya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the challenges facing those living in poverty in Nigeria in accessing justice for the enforcement of their rights, despite those rights being constitutionally protected and despite the existence of a specific procedure for their enforcement. People living in poverty are generally most likely to see their human rights violated, and least likely to enforce their rights. The article posits that the judiciary in developing countries has a crucial role to play in fighting human rights violations specifically affecting people living in poverty, and notes the great challenge for the Nigerian legislator and judiciary towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the needy in Nigeria. The example of public interest litigation in India can serve as a source of inspiration in this respect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , October 2010 , pp. 258 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nigerian National Bureau of Statistics “Poverty profile” (2005), available at: <http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/Connections/poverty/PovertyProfile2004.pdf> (last accessed 26 June 2010).

2 Obiagwu, C and Odinkalu, CA “Combating legacies of colonialism and militarism” in An-Na'im, AA (ed) Human Rights Under African Constitutions: Realizing the Promise for Ourselves (2003, University of Pennsylvania Press) 211 at 233;Google Scholar Committee for the Defence of Human Rights Boiling Point: A Publication on the Crisis in the Oil Producing Communities in Nigeria (2000, CDHR) at 3; see also Order in Council LN 228 of 1959 in which statutory instrument no 1772 was published as an amendment of the Nigerian Constitution (Amendment) Order in Council.

3 Heyns, C (ed) Human Rights Law in Africa (vol 2, 2004, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) at 1387.Google Scholar

4 Secs 13–24 of the 1999 Constitution.

5 Id, sec 6(6)(c).

6 These include the: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), ratified by Nigeria on 29 July 1993; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), ratified on 29 July 1993; International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), ratified on 16 October 1967; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1979), ratified on 13 June 1985; Optional Protocol to CEDAW (1999), ratified on 22 November 2004; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), ratified on 28 June 2001; Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), ratified on 19 April 1991; and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002), acceded to on 27 September 2001. Regional instruments include the: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981), ratified on 22 June 1983; Optional Protocol to the African Charter on the establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (1998), ratified on 20 May 2004; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990), ratified 23 July 2001; and Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003), ratified 16 December 2004.

7 Act no 2 of 1983.

8 [2000] 6 NWLR (pt 660) 228.

9 [2004] 14 WRN 91; [2004] 5 NWLR (pt 865) 208. A similar decision was arrived at by the Court of Appeal in Exec Gov Kwara State v Lawal [2005] 20 WNR 679 and by the Lagos High Court in Fasawe v A-G, Federation and Others suit no M/490/2006 (unreported), in the Ikeja Judicial Division before Hon Justice Inumidun E Akande, the ruling of which was delivered on 28 November 2006.

10 [1997] 6 NWLR (pt 510) 549; see also Awguocha v Zubair [2002] FWLR (pt 99) 1129.

11 Dongtoe v Civil Service Commission of Plateau State [2001] FWLR (pt 50) 1639.

12 It was decided in Constitutional Rights Project v The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (unreported suit no M/102/93, judgment delivered on 5 May 1993 by the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division) that the provisions of the African Charter cannot be ousted by local legislation. Laudable as this decision is, it does not serve much purpose as a result of the principle of binding precedent based on the hierarchy of courts; this is in view of the Supreme Court decision in Fawehinmi which decided that non-justiciable provisions of chap II of the 1999 Constitution cannot be enforced indirectly through the provisions of the African Charter. This means that human rights under the African Charter which are not justiciable under the 1999 Constitution cannot be enforced, notwithstanding the fact that the constitution is covered by the African Charter, which is itself incorporated into Nigerian law.

13 Order 2 of the Rules.

14 Constitutional Rights Project (CRP) Guide to Human Rights Litigation in Nigeria (2006, CRP) at 27–32.

15 Justice Tobi, Niki “Speedy trials in the 1990s” 6 Constitutional Rights Journal 1 at 24, cited in id at 31.Google Scholar

16 Chief Fawehinmi, G (SAN) The Way Law Should Go (2001, Nigerian Law Publication) at 18.Google Scholar

17 Justice P Nnaemeka-Agu “The role of lawyers in the protection and advancement of human rights” (paper presented during the Law Week Celebration of the Nigerian Bar Association, Imo State, 10 February 1992) at 21, cited in CRP Guide to Human Rights Litigation, above at note 14 at 31.

18 [1980] suit no M/21/80 decision of the State High Court, Abeokuta, cited in G Fawehinmi Nigerian Law of Habeas Corpus at 307, also referred to in CRP Guide to Human Rights Litigation, above at note 14 at 32.

19 CRP, ibid.

20 Fame Publications Ltd v Encomium Ventures Ltd [2000] 8 NWLR (pt 667) 105.

21 Unreported suit no FHC/12C/83, cited in Fawehinmi, GNigerian Press Under the Constitution and the Criminal Laws (1989, Nigerian Law Publications) at C479.Google Scholar

22 [1991] 1 NWLR (pt 129) 659.

23 [1982] 3 NCLR 915 at 928, per Karibi-Whyte JSC.

24 Agbakoba, O, SAN and S Ibe Travesty of Justice: An Advocacy Manual Against the Holding Charge (2004, The Human Rights Law Service) at 4.Google Scholar

25 An expert report in September 2007 stated that “there are still about 60 million adults in Nigeria, 85% of them under the age of 35 years who can neither read nor write”. See K Okoronkwo and N Onyedika “Illiteracy level still high in Nigeria, say experts” (27 September 2007) The Guardian (Nigeria), available at: <http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-81853.0.html> (last accessed 27 September 2007); R Abati “Dynasties of poverty and educational challenge” (4 May 2008) The Guardian (Nigeria), available at: <http://odili.net/news/source/2008/may/4/18.html> (last accessed 5 May 2008).

26 A person is functionally illiterate if he cannot engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community and also for enabling him to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his own and the community's development. See the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development “Functionally illiterate”, available at: <http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1279> (last accessed 10 April 2008).

27 CEDAW/C/NGA/6 of 5 October 2006.

28 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system in three Nigerian states” (technical assessment report, January 2006) at 33.

29 Above at note 27 at 100.

30 The extreme poor's lack of resources of livelihood or means to approach or even reach court has been described as the biggest obstacle to justice. See Justice RK Abichandani “Obstacles to justice and the suffering humanity”, available at:  <  http://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/Articles/accesstojustice.htm> (last accessed 21 August 2007).

31 Order 53 rule 1(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 specifies fees in app 2 to the Rules. In respect of the recovery of a specified sum not exceeding N20,000 (approx $160), a filing fee of N1,000 (approx $8) is payable; for claims exceeding N20,000 but not exceeding N100,000 (approx $800), the sum of N1,500 (approx $12) is payable, while for claims exceeding N100,000 but not above N1,000,000 (approx $8,000) a filing fee of N2,500 (approx $20) is payable, up to a maximum filing fee of N50,000 (approx $400). An originating summons costs about N680 (approx $5), while a motion on notice costs about N330 (approx $3), and an ex parte motion costs as much as that on notice. All fees exclude the costs of service, which is calculated by distance, but is not less than N100 (approx $0.80) each. In other cases, the fees for different motions may increase, depending on the type of application being filed, so that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is N500 (approx $4). The aggregate of these fees may be payable by a party filing a suit for the enforcement of his fundamental rights, if he is claiming damages for the violation of his rights.

32 Such as the filing fee for a motion for leave to appeal; if appeal is not as of right, a filing fee for notice of appeal where leave is granted and other filing fees as may be necessary. The fees are specified in the third schedule to the Court of Appeal Rules 2002 under Fees in Civil and Criminal Matters, order 1, rule 5 and they range from N500 (approx $4) to N100 (approx $0.80) per filing of each motion.

33 Interviews with Nigerian lawyers (between April and October 2006) revealed that briefing counsel to handle a fundamental rights enforcement matter in court will cost not less than N50,000 in counsel fees alone.

34 IA Ayua and DA Guobadia (eds) “Technical report on the Nigerian court procedures project, including proposal for reform of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules” (2001, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) at 43.

35 Shugaba v Attorney General of Federation [1982] 3 NLCL 895; University of Ilorin v Oluwadare [2003] 3 NWLR (pt 806) 557. See further, A Ibidapo-Obe Enforcement of Rights and the Problem of Locus Standi in Nigeria (2003) 2 UNAD LJ 113 at 120.

36 Related to this provision are secs 36(1) and 46. Sec 36(1) deals with the right to fair hearing and provides for someone's “determination of his civil rights and obligations”, while sec 46 provides for the right of anyone to go to court for “any person who alleges that any of the provisions of the Constitution has been, or is being or likely to be contravened … for redress”.

37 Adesanya v President of Nigeria [1981] 2 NCLR 358 (Adesanya).

38 Adesanya; and In Senator Abraham Adesanya v The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 1 All NLR (pt I) 1.

39 Adesanya. Obiagwu and Odinkalu “Combating legacies of colonialism and militarism”, above at note 2 at 233.

40 Hon Justice Eso, KThoughts on Law and Jurisprudence (1990, MIJ Professional Publishers) at 109.Google Scholar

41 [1987] 4 NWLR (pt 67) 797.

42 [1989] 2 NWLR (pt 102) 122.

43 This is because the narrow confines which sec 6(6)(b) restricts have already been broadened by the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Law and the 1979 constitution, based on the various powers of arrest and prosecution conferred by various secs of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Code on “any person”. Private persons can initiate criminal proceedings as provided in sec 59(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and sec 143(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

44 Akilu v Fawehinmi (No 2), above at note 42.

45 Unreported suit no FHC/ABJ/M570/2005, ruling delivered on 11 July 2006 by Hon Justice BO Kuewumi, Federal High Court, Abuja.

46 Eso Thoughts on Law and Jurisprudence, above at note 40 at 211.

47 Adesanya; and Akilu v Fawehinmi (No 2), above at note 42.

48 Eso Thoughts on Law and Jurisprudence, above at note 40 at 109.

49 Guideline 13 (right of equal access to justice) in UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “Draft guidelines: A human rights approach to poverty reduction strategies” (September 2002), para 192, available at: <http://www.fao.org/righttofood/KC/downloads/vl/docs/Human%20rights%20approach%20to%20poverty%20reduction%20strategies_draft%20guidelines.pdf> (last accessed 26 June 2010).

50 In Nigeria's 2006 report to the CEDAW Committee (above at note 27 at 98), lack of capacity for asserting rights was noted as one of the factors responsible for the limited access to justice among rural women.

51 Vandenhole, W “Human rights law, development and social action litigation in India” (2002) 2 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 136 at 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Desai, A and Muralidhar, S “Public interest litigation: Potentials and problems” in Kirpal, BH et al (eds) Supreme but Not Infallible - Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (2001, Oxford University Press) 1 at 3.Google ScholarPubMed

53 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system”, above at note 28 at 29.

54 Adeyemi, A “The impact of corruption on the administration of justice in Nigeria” in Ayua, IA and Guobadia, DA (eds) Political Reform and Economic Recovery in Nigeria (2001, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) 678 at 681.Google Scholar

55 Id at 682.

56 Id at 685.

57 Ayua and Guobadia (eds) “Technical report on the Nigerian court procedures project”, above at note 34 at 40.

58 E Odivwri and L Okenwa “Six judges may be sacked as FG implements Kayode Esho panel report” (16 November, 2004) This Day, available at: <www.thisdayonline.com/archive/2002/09/26/20020926news07.html> (last accessed 12 July 2007); “Justice Babalakin Review Committee on Eso panel's report: Claims of fair hearing denials are mischievous” (2004) 2/1 Justice Observatory 57 at 57–63.

59 The delay occasioned by the government in implementing the recommendations of the Kayode Esho Panel report had resulted in some of the indicted judicial officers being able to escape justice one way or the other, as four of the chief judges recommended for removal had died, while 13 of the judges had retired from service by February 2001 when the National Judicial Council began considering the panel's recommendations. See Odivwri and Okenwa ibid.

60 A body established by the 1999 Constitution for the appointment, discipline and removal of judicial officers in Nigeria. See sec 153(1).

61 Odivwri and Okenwa “Six judges may be sacked”, above at note 58.

62 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system”, above at note 28 at 33.

63 Ayua and Guobadia (eds) “Technical report on the Nigerian court procedures project”, above at note 34 at 28 and 39, table 2.

64 Others are inadequate personnel, poorly trained personnel, poor administrative organization, inadequate infrastructure and resources, deficiency in the system of assigning cases, poor office and court administration by judges, tardiness on the part of counsel, abuse of court procedures, poor conditions of service, inadequate use of time saving procedures and too many cases. See id at 28–29, tables 2 and 3.

65 Nigeria's Public Complaints Commission, established in 1975 through Decree No 31 of 1975 as amended by Decree No 21 of 1979. The decree was entrenched in the 1979 constitution and is now cap P37 Laws of the Federation 2004. The commission is the only body which by law has investigative power over the courts.

66 See The Public Complaints Commission Annual Reports for 2004 and 2005 (Rayor Press): copies on file with the author.

67 Richardson, I “The courts and access to justice” (2000) 31 Victoria University Wellington Law Review 164 at 172.Google Scholar

68 Budlender, G “Access to courts” (2004) 121 South African Law Journal 339 at 340.Google Scholar

69 Muralidhar, S “Judicial enforcement of economic and social rights: The Indian scenario” in Coomans, F (ed) Justiciability of Economic and Social Rights: Experiences from Domestic Systems (2006, Intersentia) 237 at 262.Google Scholar

70 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system”, above at note 28 at 17.

71 Ayua and Guobadia (eds) “Technical report on the Nigerian court procedures project”, above at note 34 at 23.

72 Ibid.

73 Reported summarily in The Guardian on 3 July 1997 and cited in id at 23.

74 (1981) 1 SCNL 1, commented upon in Ayua and Guobadia ibid.

75 Ayua and Guobadia, id at 24.

76 Ibid.

77 See Hon Dr TA Aguda “The jurisprudence of unequal justice” (foundational lecture delivered at the Lagos State University, 12 January 1987) at 4 and 6.

78 In Garba v The State [1972] 4 SC 118, the Supreme Court of Nigeria condemned the inordinate period of two years and two months which the appellant spent in custody before trial. Accused persons now spend between five and over ten years in custody before they are tried or released.

79 In Saidu v The State [1982] 4 SC 41, cited in O Agbakoba, SAN and Ibe Travesty of Justice, above at note 24 at 46, the Supreme Court of Nigeria condemned the long period of detention awaiting trials and stated: “It does not give the court any joy to see offenders escape the penalty they richly deserve, but until they are proved guilty under the appropriate law in our law courts, they are entitled to walk about in our streets and tread the Nigerian soil and breathe the Nigerian air as free as innocent men and women”.

80 Report of the National Working Group on Prison Reforms and Decongestion (February 2005, Federal Republic of Nigeria) at 6–7.

81 Key advantages and benefits of the CAIS to stakeholders in the administration of justice in Lagos state are available at: <www.lagosjudiciary.gov.ng/d003/main.aspx?dbName=DB_News192> (last accessed 14 August 2008).

82 Disposition standards of other civil matters, such as matrimonial causes, will be concluded within three months (undefended) or 12 months (defended), while probate and other matters will be concluded within 18 months, revenue matters within six months, commercial matters within 12 months and land matters within 24 months.

83 Lagos, Ikeja, Ikorodu and Badagry.

84 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system”, above at note 28 at 20.

85 Id at 20 and 22.

86 The special rapporteur cited six obstacles as some of those barring the poor from access to justice; these are: (i) their indigent condition; (ii) illiteracy and lack of education and information; (iii) the complexity of procedures; (iv) mistrust; (v) the slow pace of justice; and (vi) in many countries, the fact that they are not allowed to be accompanied or represented by solidarity associations which could also bring criminal indemnification proceedings. See Leandro Despouy's final report on human rights and extreme poverty published in 1996: E/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/13 at para 163.

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid.

89 Ayua and Guobadia (eds) “Technical report on the Nigerian court procedures project”, above at note 34 at 21.

90 UN Office on Drugs and Crime “Assessment of the integrity and capacity of the justice system”, above at note 28 at 27.

91 Muralidhar “Judicial enforcement of economic and social rights”, above at note 69 at 261.

92 Id at 262.

93 For example, UN Development Programme (UNDP) “Access to justice practice note” (2004); UNDP Programming Justice: Access for all, A Practioner's Guide to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Access to Justice (2005, UNDP). See also Guideline 13, above at note 49.

94 Vandenhole “Human rights law, development and social action litigation”, above at note 51 at 144.

95 Bhagwati, PN “Judicial activism and public interest litigation” (1984–85) 23 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 561 at 572.Google Scholar

96 d'Alemberte, T “The role of the courts in providing legal services: A proposal to provide legal access for the poor” (1989–90) 17 Florida State University Law Review 107 at 108.Google Scholar

97 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802; 1984 SCC (3) 161 at para 3 (Bandhua Mukti Morcha).

98 Peiris, GL “Public interest litigation in the Indian subcontinent: Current dimensions” (1991) 40 International Comparative Law Quarterly 66 at 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99 1981 supp SCC 87; AIR 1982 SC 149.

100 Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 571.

101 DC Wadhwa v State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 579.

102 SP Gupta.

103 Ibid.

104 See Tomasevski, K “Sanctions and human rights” in Symonides, J (ed) Human Rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (2003, Ashgate Publishing Ltd) 303 at 316.Google Scholar

105 [2002] 1 NPILR 345.

106 Muralidhar “Judicial enforcement of economic and social rights”, above at note 69 at 241.

107 Fredman, SHuman Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (2008, Oxford University Press) at 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

108 Vandenhole “Human rights law, development and social action litigation”, above at note 51 at 152; Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 570.

109 Ibid. See also Bhagwati, id at 572.

110 For example: People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1983) 1 SC 1473; and Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) 2 SCR 67 (AIR 1984 Sc 802).

111 MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 (MC Mehta).

112 Ram Kumar Misra v State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 451, cited in Desai and Muralidhar “Public interest litigation”, above at note 52 at 38.

113 Paramjit Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) 7 SCC 20, cited in Desai and Muralidhar, ibid.

114 In Bandhua Mukti Morcha, above at note 97, the petitioners had addressed a letter to Hon Bhagwati J alleging a violation of their rights.

115 MC Mehta.

116 [2001] NWLR (pt 717) 132.

117 Supporting this decision are the Court of Appeal decision in Abia State University v Chima Anyaibe [1996] 1 NWLR (pt 439) 646 and the Supreme Court's decision in Din v Attorney General of Federation [1988] 4 NWLR (pt 87) 147.

118 [1989] 4 NWLR (pt 116) 387 at 419 per Eso JSC.

119 [1994] 6 NWLR (pt 351) 470 at 500.

120 See Omoregie, E “Enforcement of fundamental rights in Nigeria: Proposals for reforms” (2005) 8 (1) University of Benin Law Journal 91 at 100–05.Google Scholar

121 [1995] FHCLR 321.

122 [1999] 1 NWLR (pt 585) 116 at 133 per Salami JCA.

123 As enunciated in the cases of Emegokwue v Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113 and Olabanji v Ajiboye (1992) 1 NWLR (pt 218) 473 at 485.

124 Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 573; see also Bandhua Mukti Morcha, above at note 97.

125 Desai and Muralidhar “Public interest litigation”, above at note 52 at 5.

126 Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 573.

127 Above at note 97, 802 at 816–17, 845 and 848–49 (SC); see Bhagwati, id at 575, where the case was also cited.

128 Bandhua Mukti Morcha.

129 Ibid.

130 Desai and Muralidhar “Public interest litigation”, above at note 52 at 2.

131 Fredman Human Rights Transformed, above at note 107 at 127.

132 S Muralidhar “Implementation of court orders in the area of economic, social and cultural rights: An overview of the experience of the Indian judiciary” (paper presented at the First Asian Regional Judicial Colloquium on Access to Justice, New Delhi, 1–3 November 2002) at 4. The author mentioned that, in the case of Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 dealing with sexual harassment of women in the workplace, Mr FS Nariman, senior advocate, assisted the Supreme Court as amicus curie in the matter.

133 Id at 6.

134 In Nigeria, it was recorded that only wealthy or educated litigants often hire lawyers to represent them in court, while others appear without representation. See Spear, T “Section introduction: New approaches to documentary sources” in Falola, T and Jennings, C (eds) African History: Spoken, Written, Unearthed (2003, University of Rochester Press) 169 at 204.Google Scholar

135 Vandenhole “Human rights law, development and social action litigation”, above at note 51 at 159.

136 In Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subhra Chakraborty  (1996) 1 SCC 490, the Supreme court ordered the accused to pay Rs 1,000 per month as interim compensation to the victim of rape for the duration of the criminal case. The court held rape to violate the right to life under art 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes the right to live with human dignity. This is as opposed to the procedure in common law where interim relief is normally limited to maintaining the status quo in the matter, until the final disposition of the case.

137 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC. In that case the court found that legislation dealing with welfare of the people, such as the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act 1976 and the Minimum Wage Act 1948 which could contribute to the dignity of the people, had not been implemented.

138 Bandhua Mukti Morcha, above at note 97 at 848–49, cited in Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 576.

139 1979 AIR 1360 (SC), cited in Bhagwati ibid.

140 Sheela Barse v Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 596.

141 (1981) I SCC 627.

142 See Desai and Muralidhar “Public interest litigation”, above at note 52 at 2.

143 Ibid.

144 Ibid.

145 (1981) 1 SCC 608, AIR 1981, SC 746.

146 (1996) 4 SCC 37.

147 Muralidhar “Implementation of court orders”, above at note 132 at 3.

148 See the Supreme Court's decision in Fawehinmi, to the effect that the African Charter cannot be superior to the constitution and, as such, anything not permitted under the constitution cannot be enforced through the African Charter. This is in view of the fact that the Supreme Court held earlier in Ogugu v The State ([1994] 9 NWLR (pt 366) 1), that the provisions of the African Charter are enforceable in the same manner as those of chap IV of the 1979 constitution.

149 Cited in Bhagwati “Judicial activism and public interest litigation”, above at note 95 at 577.

150 Muralidhar “Implementation of court orders”, above at note 132 at 3.

151 Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 at 243, cited in Muralidhar ibid.

152 Muralidhar ibid.

153 Ibid. See DK Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 (main judgment), where detailed guidelines concerning arrest were specified and compliance with the court directions was monitored until six years after the main judgment. For a sampling of subsequent orders, see those reported in (1999) 7 SCALE 222; (2000) 5 SCALE 353 and (2001) 7 SCALE 481.

154 See Ekeocha v The Civil Service Commission of Imo State & Another (1981) 1 NCLR 154.

155 See order 6 rule 2 of the Rules, which provides for committal proceedings for the contempt of a party disobeying its order.