Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN, a prominent legal practitioner and policy analyst, has called for legislative reforms to address Nigeria’s inconsistent judicial approach to locus standi, following a recent Federal High Court ruling on the controversial declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
Speaking on the judgment delivered on October 2, 2025, by Hon. Justice James Omotosho, Dr. Ubani focused on the case of Belema Briggs & Ors v. President of Nigeria & Ors, in which plaintiffs challenged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s proclamation of emergency rule and the dissolution of Rivers State’s elected structures. The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite standing to sue.
“The plaintiffs had approached the court seeking judicial review of the President’s action,” Dr. Ubani said. “In that decision, the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.”
He traced the evolution of locus standi in Nigerian law, highlighting its “long and inconsistent path.” He referenced landmark cases such as Olawoyin v. Attorney-General of Northern Nigeria and Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, noting that these decisions required a strict personal interest before a court could hear a case.
Dr. Ubani expressed concern over what he described as a regression in the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Fawehinmi v. Okonjo-Iweala, which demanded “direct injury or personal loss distinct from that of the general public.” He explained that Justice Omotosho relied heavily on this precedent, deeming the plaintiffs’ patriotic motives insufficient without proof of specific injury beyond the public’s shared plight.
“By anchoring his decision on the apex court’s precedent, Justice Omotosho acted within judicial propriety,” Dr. Ubani acknowledged. “However, the doctrine of stare decisis means lower courts must follow superior court decisions, even if such decisions appear unprogressive.”
Drawing on his own litigation experience, Dr. Ubani highlighted inconsistent rulings on public interest cases. In Monday Ubani v. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors, the Federal High Court ruled only Twitter had standing to challenge the 2021 Twitter ban, while in Ubani & Anor v. The National Assembly, the court affirmed citizens’ rights to contest legislative overreach. “These contrasting outcomes demonstrate the doctrinal uncertainty surrounding locus standi in Nigeria,” he said.
He called for legislative action to define public interest litigation more clearly, citing models in South Africa, Kenya, and India, where statutes simplify court access for civic and environmental claims. “Nigeria can no longer remain trapped in the technical rigidity of Abraham Adesanya and Fawehinmi v. Okonjo-Iweala,” he asserted. “Legislative reform is required to harmonize judicial approaches and enable citizens and organizations to challenge unlawful government acts effectively.”
Dr. Ubani concluded that such reforms would make courts “accessible arenas for justice, accountability, and the rule of law,” fulfilling the promise of public interest litigation as a “functional mechanism for justice and good governance.”



Contact & Orders 📞 0704 444 4777 | 0704 444 4999 | 0818 199 9888 🌐 www.alexandernigeria.com
______________________________________________________________________ Groundbreaking Guide For Lawyers: Adigwe Publishes ‘Artificial Intelligence For Lawyers’ With Free Research eBook
