Judicial Interpretations, Findings and Pronouncements of the Nigerian Apex Court: A Review of Mohammed Vs Frn

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this review was to challenge the apex court's decision, encompassing its findings, judicial interpretations, and pronouncements (DFIP). A notable issue arises from the discovery that the National Assembly (NA) mistakenly granted 'exclusive' criminal jurisdiction to the Federal High Court (FHC) regarding Indian hemp offenses. Consequently, this study critically examined the DFIP in depth.

Methodology: This work adopts the doctrinal method of research, which involves the use of primary and secondary sources of law. This study relied on key primary sources, including the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Acts of the National Assembly, case laws, and Decrees. Supplementary information was derived from secondary sources such as books and articles. This review extensively employed primary and secondary legal sources, focusing on statutory interpretation rules, the hierarchy of norms, particularly in relation to the principle of inconsistency, and the unalterable nature of jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN). These criteria were systematically applied to evaluate the Decision, Findings, Interpretations, and Pronouncements (DFIP) of the apex court.

Findings: The apex court's determination that Section 8 of the Indian Hemp Act (IHA) was implicitly repealed by Section 26 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) Act is inaccurate. Similarly, the assertion that the National Assembly (NA) granted 'exclusive' criminal jurisdiction to the Federal High Court (FHC) is flawed, as Section 251(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) actually confers concurrent criminal jurisdiction on the FHC.

The finding of the apex court that Magistrate Courts (MC), being a creation of state legislation, cannot try Indian hemp offences is erroneous. The apex court's assertion that Indian hemp is both a 'drug' and a 'narcotic drug' is refuted as erroneous in the course of this review.

Recommendations: Statutory intervention in the manner of amendment of Sections 251(1)(s) and 251(3) is required if the decision of the apex court is to represent the position of the law in Nigeria.