Case Summary: Okonjo-Iweala v. Fawehinmi & Ors (2025) LPELR-80384(SC)

Facts of the Case:

This case originated from an action filed by Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN (now deceased), challenging the payment of salaries to certain public officers, including Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (the appellant), who was the Federal Minister of Finance at the time. Fawehinmi, a prominent lawyer and human rights activist, contended that the salaries paid to Okonjo-Iweala and another minister, Ambassador Olufemi Adeniji, were in violation of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances) Act No. 6 of 2002. Specifically, he argued that the ministers were being paid in foreign currency (US dollars) and amounts far exceeding the statutory limits prescribed by the Act.

Fawehinmi filed an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court, seeking declarations that the payments were unlawful and an order for the refund of the excess amounts. The respondents, including the President of Nigeria and the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, filed preliminary objections, arguing that Fawehinmi lacked the locus standi to bring the suit. The trial court agreed with the respondents and struck out the case for lack of locus standi.

Fawehinmi appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the trial court’s decision, holding that he had locus standi and granting all the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. Dissatisfied, Okonjo-Iweala appealed to the Supreme Court.

‍

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Stephen Jonah Adah, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that Fawehinmi lacked the necessary locus standi to institute the action. Below are the key judicial principles and decisions enunciated by the Supreme Court:

1. Locus Standi: A Threshold Requirement for Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court reiterated that locus standi is a fundamental requirement for any legal action. A plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit, showing that their civil rights or obligations have been or are likely to be infringed. Without locus standi, a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The Court emphasized that locus standi is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power. As Justice Adah stated, “Where a party lacks locus standi, the Court is robbed of jurisdiction to hear that matter.”

2. Locus Standi in Public Interest Litigation

The Court acknowledged the evolution of locus standi in Nigeria, particularly in cases involving public interest. Historically, Nigerian courts have moved from a restrictive approach to a more liberal one, allowing individuals to challenge violations of the Constitution or public laws, even if they do not suffer direct personal injury.

However, the Court clarified that this liberal approach does not grant a blanket right to sue. The plaintiff must still show a sufficient connection to the issue, especially when challenging executive actions. In this case, Fawehinmi failed to demonstrate how the alleged overpayment of salaries to the ministers directly affected his rights or interests.

3. Taxpayer Status and Locus Standi

Fawehinmi claimed locus standi as a taxpayer, arguing that the misuse of public funds affected him personally. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that merely being a taxpayer is not enough to confer standing. The plaintiff must provide concrete evidence of how the alleged misconduct directly impacted him. As Justice Adah noted, “The fact that he

alleged he is a taxpayer without the facts of being such is a drawback in the claim of the plaintiff to the locus standi.”

4. Locus Standi and Executive Actions

The Court distinguished between challenges to legislative actions (e.g., unconstitutional laws) and executive actions (e.g., payment of salaries). While any citizen can challenge the constitutionality of a law, challenges to executive actions require the plaintiff to show a direct and personal effect on their rights. In this case, Fawehinmi’s suit targeted executive decisions (payment of salaries), and he failed to show how these decisions harmed him personally.

5. Locus Standi is Personal and Non-Transferable

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of whether locus standi could survive the death of the original plaintiff. The Court held that locus standi is a personal right that does not transfer to heirs or representatives. When Fawehinmi died during the pendency of the appeal, his son, Mohammed Fawehinmi, attempted to continue the suit. The Court ruled that the action died with Fawehinmi, as locus standi is not hereditary or transferable.

6. Power of the Court of Appeal under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act

The Supreme Court criticized the Court of Appeal for invoking its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to grant the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. The Court held that the Court of Appeal overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding the merits of the case without first resolving the issue of locus standi. Justice Adah emphasized that “the lower Court should have returned the case to the trial court for trial on merit if it was right that there was locus standi.”

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The Supreme Court’s decision in Okonjo-Iweala v. Fawehinmi is a landmark ruling on the doctrine of locus standi. It reaffirms that while Nigerian courts have adopted a more liberal approach to standing in public interest cases, plaintiffs must still demonstrate a sufficient connection to the issue at hand. The case also underscores the importance of fair hearing and the limits of appellate courts’ powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act.

In the end, the Supreme Court struck out the Originating Summons, holding that it was incompetent due to Fawehinmi’s lack of locus standi. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside.