Fundamental Rights Enforcement And The Court’s Prescribed Fees: A Call For ‘No Chargeable Fees’ On Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights Actions By: Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution- gives every person who alleges that any of his rights contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution has been or is being or is likely to be contravened by any person the constitutional right to seek redress of such infringement in any High Court in the State where such wrong has been or is being or likely to be committed. Nevertheless, considering the economic situation of Nigerian citizens, and of course, many times, those who are victims of fundamental rights breach are less privileged and or poor persons who cannot even afford the cost of engaging the services of a lawyer to represent him or her. Of recent, just in the month of February, 2018, the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory- Abuja, signed into law, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory-Abuja, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018, which was to come into force on the 15^th day of February, 2018. By this new Rules, Order 65 provides for fees and allowances. And by Rule 1(a) of the Order 65, ‘The fees se-out in the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules are payable by a person commencing the respective proceedings or desiring the respective service specified in those Schedules’. A study of these Rules, reveals that fees payable under the old Rules of 2004, has been increased to an increased amount. For instance, filing of an application to Court is not less than N1,000.00., an affidavit is not less than N500.00., whereas, under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009-herein after referred to as FREPR, by the Appendix, the filing fee in fundamental rights is just N500.00, while an affidavit shall be N50.00. This paper is of the fear that applications under the FREPR might also be increased by the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria, who has been conferred the constitutional power to make provisions for the Rules and Procedures on the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution by Section 46(3) of the Constitution, considering the increased fees under the High Court of FCT’s new Rules, the situation which might prevent the courage to enforce fundamental rights of victims. Hence, this paper calls for a ‘no chargeable fees’ on enforcement of fundamental rights actions. First and foremost, it must be emphasized by the writer of this paper that it is not the objective of the FREPR that government should make moneys from the enforcement of fundamental rights, rather, it is the primary duty of the government to protect the security and welfare of its peoples as provided by section 14(2) of the Constitution. In other words, the point that the writer of this paper is making is that monetary profit is not the objective of the FREPR, therefore, the over-ridding objectives of the FREPR has been clearly stated in the Preamble to the FREPR thus ‘‘1. The Court shall constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the overriding objectives of these Rules at every stage of human rights action, especially whenever it exercises any power given to it by these Rules or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets any rule.  3. The overriding objectives of these Rules are as follows: (a) The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protections intended by them. (b) For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal, regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these bills constitute instruments in themselves or form parts of larger documents like constitutions. Such bills include; (i) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other Instruments (including protocols) in the African regional human rights system, (ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human rights system, (c) For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court may make consequential orders as may be just and expedient. (d) The Court shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice for all classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate, the uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the unrepresented. (Underlining is the writer of this paper’s for emphasis). Furthermore, the writer of this paper is of the submission that suits or any matter bothering on enforcement of fundamental rights should be made free of charge and of any cost. This in the submission of the writer of this paper, would encourage the enforcement of fundamental rights. For instance, government agencies are encouraged to defend suits and to institute suits in any court in Nigeria, by not paying any prescribed fees. Thus, government’s agencies have the motivation to carry out their functions under the law. In the same vein, the writer of this paper is praying the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria to utilize his power as conferred by section 46(3) of the Constitution by waiving the payment of any fee in respect of matters brought pursuant to the FREPR. This will encourage the effective enforcement of fundamental rights by the victim or his relative or human rights advocate/activist who would enforce the fundamental rights of a victim. More so that the FREPR has now prohibited the dismissing or striking out of suits by any court before whom such suit is instituted on the ground or for want of locus standi, thus ‘‘The Court shall encourage and welcome public interest litigation in the human rights field and no human rights case may be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi. In particular, human rights activists, advocates or groups as well as non-governmental organisations, may institute human rights application on behalf of any potential applicant. In human rights litigation, the applicant may include any of the following; (i) Anyone acting in his own interest; (ii) Anyone acting on behalf of another person; (iii) Anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of a group or class of persons; (iv) Anyone acting in the public interest; and  (v) Association acting in the interest of its members or other individuals or groups’. (Underlining is mine for emphasis). Finally therefore, it is the belief of the writer of this paper that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria would either by a Practice Direction, directing all courts to desist from charging any applicant for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained under Chapter IV of the Constitution or by reviewing and or amending or repealing the FREPR of the 2009 and making provisions that waives the payment of any fee on actions bothering on Chapter IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the Rules. This is what is expected in no time and not an increment in the current prescribed fee. It is further hoped that human rights activists/advocates/lawyers, Non-Governmental Organisations for the enforcement of human rights, and the Nigerian public will also join the writer of this paper in agitating a #nochargeablefees on matters bothering on Chapter IV of the Constitution and or the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. This, it is believed, will bring about a situation where victims of human rights violation would have no financial constraint in approaching courts with jurisdiction to seek redress of any violation of their fundamental rights and an indication that government actually cares about the security and welfare of its people. e-mail: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com]]>