By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of the legislation and that there is no other and effective manner inwhich the issue may be brought before the Court.The Canadian Supreme Court has in fact extended the liberalizing effect of thesejudgments beyond constitution cases.Finally, it is important to revisit the Nigerian position, What was said in Thomaswas not merely an expression of the seeming inflexibility of s. 6(6) of the 1979 NigerianConstitution but it was also a product of the colonial heritage, Soon after the attainmentof independence Nigerian courts found themselves having to determine when and underwhat circumstances will a litigant be accorded standing to challenge the constitutionalityof a statute or to ask for a judicial review.In Olawayin v.A.G of Northern Nigeria (1961) AII N.L.R 269, the plaintiff hadchallenged the Constitutionality of a law which prohibited children from engaging inpolitical activities. The trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that no right of theplaintiff was alleged to have been infringed and that it would be contrary to publicprinciple to make the declaration asked for in value.He appealed to the Federal Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal on the sameground of absence of sufficient interest. In a classic restatement of the orthodox commonlaw approach, Unworthy, F.J. said, at p. 274.There was no suggestion that the appellant was in imminent danger ofcoming into conflict with the law or that there has been any real or directinterference with his normal business or other activities…the appellantfailed to show that he had a sufficient interest to sustain a claim...to holdthat there was an interest here would amount to saying that a privateindividual obtains an interest by the mere enactment of a law which mayin future come in conflict.Curiously, the Nigerian courts remained stuck in that position even when the 1979Constitution suggested a way out with the clause –Any person who alleges that any of the provisionsof this chapter has bee, is being or likely to becontravened in any State in relation to him mayapply to a High Court in that State for redress.This is illustrated in the much criticized decision in Adesanya v. President of Nigeria &Anor. (1981) 1 AII N.L.R.I. In that case the appellant brought action challenging the201