By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

appointment by the President of the second respondent to the chairmanship of the FederalElectoral Commission. The latter was at the material time the Chief Judge of BendelState and was, therefore, disqualified from being appointed a member of theCommission.When the matter came up for final disposal before the Supreme Court it was unanimouslyheld that the appellant had not demonstrated the appointment and subsequentconfirmation by the Senate of the second respondent had in any way infringed his civilright and obligations. Significantly, though, Fetayi – Williams, C.J.N. who delivered theleading judgment and these interesting remarks to make ( at p. 20):I take significant cognizance of the fact that Nigeria is a developingcountry with a multi – ethnio society and a written Federal Constitution,where rumourmongering is the pastime of the market places and theconstruction sites. To deny any member of such a society who is aware orbelieves, or is led to believe, that there has been an infraction of any of theprovisions or our Constitution, or that any law passed by any of ourLegislative Houses, whether Federal or State, is unconstitutional, access toa Court of law to air his grievance on the flimsy execuse of lack ofsufficient interest is to provide a ready recipe for organizeddisenchantment with the judicial process.There was unfavourable reaction form the public and the profession to the Adesanya,decision and the ambivalence of the Chief Justice in the above passage provided moreammunition. Henoeforth many of the Nigerian courts preferred to use the broad andliberal part of the judgment of the Chief Justice, Therefore, in Chief Isagba y. Alege(1981) 2 NCLR 424, Omosungly accorded standing to a plaintiff by holding that anyNigerian taxpayer had sufficient interest in the observance of the provisions of theConstitution by any organ of the State of its agency. And in A.G of Benden State v. A.Gof Nigerian (1982) 3 NCLRI, 88, Obaseki, J.S.C., who was a party to he decision inOdesanya, came around to say:The constitution has opened the gates to the courts by its provisions andthere can be no justifiable reasons for closing the gates against those whodo not want to be governed by a law enacted NOT in accordance with theprovisions of the constitution.The shift in Nigeria was sealed in Adediran v. Interland Transport Ltd. (1991) 9 NWLR155 where Karibi – Whyte, J.S.C said:202