Basic rights are important rights and flexibilities ensured to people by the Constitution and other relevant legal instruments. They work as safeguards versus approximate governmental actions and illegal disturbance by people, organizations, and other bodies. In Nigeria, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as modified), especially Chapter IV, ensures basic rights, consisting of the rights to life, individual liberty, reasonable hearing, liberty of expression, liberty of motion, and liberty from discrimination, and so on. To guarantee the defense of these rights, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 supply a procedural structure through which individuals whose rights have actually been, are being, or are most likely to be infringed might look for judicial redress. The enforcement treatment is developed to promote access to justice, help with the security of human self-respect, and offer an efficient treatment for infractions of basic rights. It shows the concept that humans rights need to not stay simple statements however should can useful enforcement through the courts. In spite of the honorable goals of this treatment, issues have actually emerged concerning its abuse by litigants who might invoke it for functions other than the authentic security of basic rights.

The abuse of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules happens where a litigant utilizes the treatment incorrectly, frivolously, or for an ulterior function. Such abuse might occur where a celebration disguises a normal legal, business, home, or other civil conflict as a basic rights infraction, utilizes basic rights procedures to bug a challenger, looks for to annoy or postpone the decision of another fit, or institutes procedures mostly to protect an incorrect benefit. It might likewise take place where the treatment is utilized to prevent recognized legal procedures or to pursue claims that do not really divulge a violation or threatened violation of an essential. The concern is especially substantial due to the fact that the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 are meant to assist in, instead of block, access to justice. The Rules embrace a liberal and rights-oriented technique to the enforcement of essential rights. Such liberality does not provide an unlimited licence on litigants to conjure up the treatment for every complaint or argument. The courts need to for that reason strike a balance in between making sure that real claims are heard without unneeded technical challenges and avoiding the abuse of the treatment for security, vexatious, or overbearing functions.

The abuse of basic rights enforcement procedures has severe ramifications for the administration of justice. It might result in the reproduction of matches, waste judicial time and resources, enforce unneeded monetary and psychological problems on opposing celebrations, and weaken public self-confidence in the legal system. It might compromise the efficiency of basic rights security by diverting judicial attention from real cases of human rights offenses. The courts have an essential duty to identify genuine claims for the enforcement of essential rights from procedures set up in bad faith or for functions irregular with the goals of the Rules. Versus this background, the subject, “Abuse of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure by Litigants”, takes a look at the nature and types of such abuse, the legal concepts governing the organization and decision of basic rights procedures, the mindset of Nigerian courts towards incorrect invocation of the enforcement treatment, and the treatments or sanctions readily available to avoid and deal with such abuse. The main issue is how the enforcement treatment can stay available and efficient for individuals whose rights need security while making sure that it is not made use of to beat completions of justice. Eventually, the appropriate administration of essential rights jurisdiction needs both the defense of authentic constitutional claims and the avoidance of procedural abuse by litigants.

READ ALSO: Fundamental human rights in Nigeria

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The truths of this case as reported in Ali v Maradi (2026) 15 NWLR (Pt.20-62) 69 are that the appellants set up an action versus the participant under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, looking for a statement that the participant’s risk to apprehend and apprehend the 1st appellant by the usage of policeman was unlawful and an infraction of his right to individual liberty ensured by areas 46 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution and a statement that the deal performed by the appellants with the participant, being an industrial deal in the regular course of company deal, might not generate any criminal examination or procedures versus them. The appellants likewise looked for an order of continuous injunction limiting the participant either by himself or his representatives, appoints, privies, law enforcement officer and/or anyone whomsoever, from detaining and/or apprehending the 1st appellant on account of the subject of the application and an order setting aside the endeavor which the 1st candidate was required to make, accepting a payment of the amount of 3,000,000.00 to the participant before His Royal Highness, the Galadima of Kano. The case of the appellants was that, in an industrial deal with the participant in regard of sales/distribution of poly mats, the 2nd appellant’s item, they provided to the participant on credit items worth 5,000,000.00, who paid the amount of 3,500,000.00, leaving a balance of 1,500,000.00. Consequently, the participant made an advance payment of 6,000,000.00 for more products of the item however the appellants had the ability to provide just products worth 3,000,000.00 as outcome of financial difficulties and revolt. The participant was placed on notification of the advancement. The appellants averred that the participant turned to making use of hazard and force from the Royal Palace of the Galadima of Kano and the cops to make the appellant carry out to pay the balance of 3,000,000.00 without thinking about the amount of 1,500,000.00 at first owed them by the participant. The participant’s case was that he paid an overall of 8,500,000.00 in various instalments to the appellants for the supply of poly mats which the appellants had the ability to provide to the worth of 5,255,000.00, leaving a balance of 3,147,000.00, which they have actually declined or disregarded to reimburse in spite of duplicated needs. The participant rejected approaching the cops or any other police to recuperate his cash from the appellants however confessed approaching the conventional organization to recuperate his cash. At the end of hearing, the high court went into judgment in favour of the participant. It purchased the appellants to pay the participant the indebted amount of 3,147,000.00. Aggrieved by the judgment of the high court, the appellants interested the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and verified the judgment of the high court. Discontented, the appellants interested the Supreme Court, which permitted the appeal in part.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Reliefs Which can be Claimed Under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules:

Reliefs claimable under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules are restricted strictly to matters occurring under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as changed). Any workout of jurisdiction in regard of subject-matters outside the scope of Chapter IV is a nullity, being unconstitutional and space.

Per ADAH, J.S.C. at pages 90-91, paras A-B:

“In the instantaneous case, the high court, in its choice at pages 127-128 of the record of appeal, revealed its deem follows:

1. That the deal in between the participant and the candidates was simply civil in nature.

2. That there was no proof from the candidates developing that they were apprehended or apprehended by the participant or by any of his representatives.

3. That the candidates confessed their insolvency to the participant, as consisted of in paragraph 16 of the candidates’ affidavit and paragraphs 3(e), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), 0), (k), (I), and of the participant’s counter-affidavit.

4. That although the candidate carried out to pay the amount of N3,147,000 to the participant, as evidenced by the endeavor connected to the counter-affidavit, there was no product positioned before the court to reveal any danger to the candidates’ basic rights.

5. That the more and much better affidavit of the candidates, especially paragraph 2 thereof, totaled up to a legal argument and conclusion and made up an afterthought.

6. And in the interest of justice, the court made the following orders:

(a) that the participant will not use the services of any law-enforcement company to impose the deal in between him and the candidates; and

(b) that the candidates will pay to the participant the amount of 143,147,000, being the quantity undoubtedly owed to the participant. (Italic mine).

From the foregoing, the high court was categorical in its finding that the appellants’ claim was simply civil which there was no breach of their basic rights. It is substantial to keep in mind that there was no counter-claim submitted by the participants. In the situations, as soon as the appellants stopped working to develop any offense of their essential rights, the only correct order available to the court was a termination of the application. Appropriately, the high court’s endeavor into the legal relationship and the problem of insolvency in between the celebrations totaled up to a baseless overreach, which eventually occasioned oppression to the appellants and was for that reason unneeded and incorrect.”