allAfrica.com: National Assembly Can't Interfere in Judicial Process, Says Shell: Posted Saturday 22 October 2005
This Day (Lagos)
Chuks Okocha
Port Harcourt
Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) yesterday told a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt that the National Assembly or any of its committees has no valid constitutional rights to interfere in judicial matters.
It said it would not pay $1.5 billion, which the House of Representatives directed it to indigenes of Bayelsa State for damages to environment and other deaths suffered by the indigenes of the state since 1956 when Shell commenced oil exploration in the region.
The House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions and Complaints during the Speakership of Alhaji Ghali Naâ?? Abba had directed Shell to pay $1.5 billion to the state, but Anglo-Dutch company refused and took the matter to court for adjudication.
Counsel to Shell, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN), leading Chief OCJ Okocha (SAN) yesterday told the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt presided over by Justice Okekechukwu Okeke that the directive of the House Committee that Shell should pay $1.5 billion as damages constitutes a gross breach of the separations of powers as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.
According to Akinjide, who was responding to Bayelsa State Counsel, Tayo Oyitiba (SAN), "the actions of the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions and Complaints that Shell should pay the said compensation is not only illegal and unconstitutional, but a flagrant breach of sections 4, 6 and 88 of the 1999 constitution."
He said the action of the House is also a breach of the time honoured principles of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary.
Akinjide, who was the former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice in the regime of Alhaji Shehu Shagari told the court that all judiciary powers are vested in the court and not the National Assembly as the directive of the House that Shell should pay the compensation of $1.5 billion is a judicial function.
He explained that the action of the National Assembly in this matter is not a conclusive one, hence the said beneficiary of the directive of the House is in the court seeking enforcement of the resolution of the National Assembly.
Akinjide said that for the resolution of the House of Representatives to be valid in this regard, that it must be in consonance with sections 4, 6 and 88 of the 1999 constitution, saying the legislative investigation of the House is not a valid investigation in law, not was it purpose valid, therefore, everything it did are null and void. The investigation is permitted as it is a usurpation of judicial functions.
To support his argument, Akinjide referred the judge to Adikwu vs Federal House of Representatives, 1982 Nigerian Weekly Law Report (NWLR) page 407, stating that the action of the House was a breach of the constitution and the principles of the separation of powers.
"My lord, my submission, is that the action of the House of Representatives, through its committee is a flagrant breach of the injunctions of the separation of powers as enshrined in the constitution," Akinjide said, while referring the court to another case between the Attorney General of Oyo State vs Adeyemi and other as contained in page 46 of NWLR of 1982, paragraphs 7 and 8.
According to Akinjide, he said that the it was the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that the principles of separations of power is the bedrock of the federal constitution like Nigeria.
He also quoted Justice Uche Omo (JCA) as contained in the NWLR 1982, page 871 saying "basically, what the injunction of the separation of powers says is that the legislature, executive and judiciary are independent arms and must not encroach on each other and that any breach is not only illegal, but unconstitutional.
Akinjide also quoted the All England Law Report page 198 paragraph , where the House of Lords said "legislature and Courts have different functions" therefore "what the House did in its resolution is contrary to the rule of law, it is the rule of politics."
Again, he quoted the judgement of Justice Karibe Whyte, as contained in page 350 to 382 of the 1985 NWLR where he said that the action of the National Assembly is not binding on the Courts, it is an action in futility, stating "if the actions of the National Assembly is binding on the Courts, they would not be here to seek enforcement."
The case has since been adjoined to December 1 and 2, 2005.
Click here to return to ShellNews.net HOME PAGE