The Status in Nigeria of Treaties Predating the 1979 Constitution: Reflections on JFS v. Brawal Line Ltd

Abstract

It is an essential ingredient of sovereignty that every State has an absolute jurisdiction to determine the laws that apply within its territory and to determine, by its laws, the organ of the State that has the competence to make laws and the procedures to be followed. The competent organ that makes municipal law (the legislature) is usually different from the organ that makes international law (the executive). As a result, and following the dictates of separation of powers, while the executive is competent to enter into treaties, its competence is eroded by the competence of the legislature when a treaty is intended to be applied to municipal subjects; such a treaty intrudes into the competence of the legislature. When this occurs, the municipal applicability of the treaty would turn on the requirements specified by municipal law. This is the function of section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This section bars the executive from transforming its treaty-making power into legislative powers by requiring legislative approval for the application of a treaty in Nigeria. Expectedly, the section has been variously interpreted and applied by Nigerian courts. This paper examines the views expressed by the Supreme Court in JFS v. Brawal Line Ltd and argues that the Supreme Court failed to give proper expression to the dualist nature of that section.