the exclusionary principle of locus standi: an obstacle to justice in

Page | 72

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

THE EXCLUSIONARY PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS STANDI: AN OBSTACLE TO JUSTICE

IN PUBLIC INTEREST ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA

Abstract

Over the years, many prospective litigants who had suffered infringement of their environmental rights from

the government, organisations and individuals have had set-backs in the process of enforcing their rights. Such

set-backs occurred as a result of procedural and technical requirement inherent in the court procedure rules,

principal of which is locus standi. This paper examined the pressing issue of locus standi in Nigeria

environmental law litigation process and questioned the rationale of such a requirement in the face of the

obstacles it presents to the right of litigants to seek justice without hindrance. In doing so, this paper adopted

the doctrinal methodology approach. It looked into the position of the law in some common law countries vis-

à-vis the situation in Nigeria. The paper relied on primary and secondary sources of data, to wit, international

legal documents, case law, and local statutes. The secondary sources comprised of books, journal articles,

internet materials, periodicals and academic dissertations/ thesis. It was found, inter alia, that the strict

application of the procedural requirement of locus standi has stalled the cause of justice for many and also

denied many access to justice in rights enforcement in Nigeria. It recommended a more liberal interpretation

of locus-standi requirement as applicable in the South African courts for a hitch-free environmental litigation

and its adoption to obviate a resort to extra-legal/self-help methods sometimes adopted by frustrated litigants.

Keywords: Nigeria, Environmental Justice Litigation, Locus Standi, Public Interest Litigation

1. Introduction

Many prospective litigants who had suffered infringement of their environmental rights from

government, corporations and individuals have had set-backs in the process of enforcing these rights.

Such set-backs occurred as a result of procedural and technical provisions or requirement inherent

in the court procedure rules. One such rule is the locus standi requirement which has caused many

to lose interest and hope of enforcing their environmental rights in the judicial system while others

regard the rule as a weapon ranged against them and meant to protect the “tyrannical activities” of

the government.

Environmental litigation/action is a prelude to enforcement of environmental laws and

policies without which “environmental law would be nothing but empty platitudes and hollow

admonitions that have no place in a state under a rule of law.”

Environmental litigation

is therefore

necessary for the creation of a dynamic environmental regime. In this context, victims of

environmental injury should ordinarily be able to take any necessary environmental action to litigate

the violation under the law without hindrance.

The legal phenomenon of locus standi has however

proved to be a perennial obstacle instead of an aid to environmental justice litigation in Nigeria and

some other countries of sub-Sahara Africa thereby having serious impacts on environmental

Christine O Ike, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus; Phone; 08034043168; Emaii;

[email protected]

RK Salman and FJ Oniekoro, ‘Death of Locus Standi and the Rebirth of Public Interest Litigation in the Enforcement of

Human Rights in Nigeria: Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 in Focus.’ (2015) 23 (2015) 23

IIUMLJ 107

Daily Times Newspaper December 9, 1976, reported in “The Great Debate” Nigerian view point on the 1976/77 Draft

Constitution, (1977) p. 44

B Sang 2013 (57/1) J.A.L. 31. The word litigation refers to the process of initiating or defending a contested legal claim

with a view of seeking a remedy.

Science Direct ‘Environmental Justice’<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-

sciences/environmental-justice>. accessed 25 October 2020)

Page | 73

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

protection. While developed nations have made steady progress in litigating environmental injustice,

Nigeria still lags behind despite increased global environmental awareness.

Stemming from the archaic courts’ interpretation of the traditional notion of locus standi, in

Nigeria’s common law legal system, there is now a growing impetus for a more liberal interpretation

of this doctrine in environmental litigation because of the danger of unlawful decisions and acts of

government not being challenged in the conventional way either because no-one is entitled to sue or

because those who have the necessary locus standi choose not to sue. The aim of this paper is to

discuss the vexing issue of the locus standi requirement in environmental justice litigation in order

to provide a valuable insight into the frustrations faced by litigants in their bid to enforce their

environmental rights when infringed; how the locus standi requirement has become an obstacle

instead to judicial process that may lead litigants resorting to extra-judicial self-help methods in the

bid to get justice.

Locus standi implies that a prospective litigant must have sufficient interest to apply to the

court for the enforcement of a right; to challenge government action or that of any of its agency;

have a court to declare a law unconstitutional or litigate in the public interest failing which the

application will fail. Traditionally, in most jurisdictions, if a plaintiff has a legal right which has been

breached and has suffered damage to that right as a consequence, it has the necessary locus standi to

sue.

The doctrine of locus standi has developed and evolved to ensure that courts played their

rightful role in a democracy by serving the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers.

Secondly, the purpose was to prevent the floodgates of litigation from opening, where every

“busybody” could bring any case before the court regardless of their interest in the matter.

Hence,

the doctrine serves a gate keeping function to restrict access to judicial remedies.

Thirdly, it

stemmed from the litigation focus on the protection of private rights, leading to highly individualised

systems of justice.

1. Conceptual Clarifications

Environmental Justice

USEPA

defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

Locus standi

Locus Standi is a Latin maxim consisting of two words namely locus which means place and standi

which means the right to bring an action. So, collectively, it means the right to appear or the right to

bring an action before the court. With the maxim, a person needs to show his legal capacity before

approaching the court meaning that such person can only approach the court when his personal

interest has suffered or an injury is inflicted upon him. This maxim is one of the fundamental

principles of the adversarial litigation system.

In legal parlance generally, the doctrine of Locus

Standi otherwise known as “standing” refers to the capacity of a litigant to institute proceedings in a

court of law when his right has been infringed. It determines the “competence of a plaintiff to assert

F Benzoni, ‘Environmental Standing: Who Determines the Value of Other Life?’ Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. (2008) (18) 352.

Murombo (2010) (6/2) LEAD 167-168.

T Bailey, ‘Judicial Discretion in Locus standi: Inconsistency Ahead?” 2010 (4) Galway Student L.Rev. 1.

Murombo, (n.14) p.168.

United States Environmental Agency (USEPA) is an independent executive agency of the United States federal

government tasked with environmental protection matters founded in 1970.

Yash Thakur, ‘Locus Standi: Meaning and Essential ingredients of Locus Standi’ (2021)

< https://legalstudymaterial.com/locus-standi-meaning-and-essential-ingredients-of-locus-standi/> (accessed, 29 May,

2022).

Page | 74

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

the matter of their complaint before the court.”

This phrase is often used interchangeably with the

term “standing.” It gives authority to a litigant to invoke the jurisdictional competence of courts in

relation to any matter, criminal and civil litigations.

The concept has different aspects. It generally

deals with the issue of whether a person who wants to approach the court is a proper party to

prosecute the matter.

It determines the right to sue which requires that a plaintiff needs to have the

necessary capacity to sue and a legally recognised interest in the relevant action to be able to seek

remedy.

Preferably, the former is better referred to as capacity to sue while the latter is better

known as locus standi. Factors such as legal capacity, mental capacity and age help to determine

capacity to sue while locus standi on the other hand is about whether the claim is based on a legally

enforceable right and whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to enforce that right.

Public Interest

Public interest can be defined as the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and

protection or something in which the public as a whole has a stake; especially if it is an interest that

justifies government regulation. There is no denying the fact that the goals of environmental justice

can only be achieved when every citizen enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental

and health hazards, and any citizen deprived of the right to a healthy environment can have equal

access to courts to seek justice on this right.

2. Locus standi under English Law

Under the English common law, a legal system after which Nigerian legal system is modelled,

ordinarily a plaintiff claiming relief must have some private legal right or legal interest recognized

by law which has been violated by the defendant. In other words, under the common law, a party

who suffers some damage or injury from the act of a private individual or of the state or its organ

can approach the court. In this process, it is essential that the prospective litigant shows that he has

suffered some injury or his legal right has been violated. This means that there shall be a sufficient

connection between the injury caused and the person approaching the court. The doctrine of locus

standi ensures that only bonafide parties with genuine grievance came to the court. In public

nuisance actions, a plaintiff will be allowed to bring an action where the plaintiff has suffered

particular damage other than and beyond that suffered by the general public. Other circumstances

where a private individual may be able to bring an action against another private individual for breach

of statutory duty may, exceptionally, be in the environmental field. Currently, there is no discernible

move in England for expanding representative or class action, to cover or to obtain protection against

environmental pollution.

Locus standi depends on the existence of a right of action and an

B Hough, ‘A Re-Examination of the Case for a Locus Standi Rule in Public Law’ (1997) <https://eprints.

bournemouth.ac.uk> accessed 23 May, 2022)

For instance, by virtue of section 251 (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the

most notable environmental protection function assigned to the Federal High Court is to exercise exclusive jurisdictions

over exploitation involving mines, and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas).

Aside the environmental issues relating to the mines, oil and gas sector of the Nigerian economy, it appears that the

superior courts at both federal and state levels could exercise concurrent jurisdictions over environmental matters.

The Environmental Court of each state of the federation could equally exercise such jurisdiction over some

environmental and sanitation matters within the confines of the laws establishing them, except that such laws may

not have in any way captured PIL processes.

C Loots, ‘Standing, Ripeness and Mootness’ in Constitutional Law of SA (2008) 7-1

Devenish 2005 (38) De Jure 28.

Ibid.

USEPA, ‘Environmental Justice.’ <.https://epa.gov.>environment>.accessed 20 July, 2022)

TH Jacob ’Access to Justice in England’ in M. Cappelletti and B Garth (eds) Access to Justice - A World Survey (1978) (I)

(!), 417-471.

Page | 75

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

enforceable right. In private law actions, a plaintiff will not have locus standi unless he can prove

that one of his or her recognised legal rights has been infringed or is being threatened.

However, in recent times, the rule of locus standi has been relaxed and even allowed a

public-spirited citizen to approach the court on behalf of poor and downtrodden people. To claim

judicial review of administrative actions in the public interest in the field of environmental law,

English courts have accepted, like the United States of America courts, a 'sufficient-interest’ and

even ‘non-economic interests’ criteria which is no greater than that of any other member of the

public.

Locus standi was denied in the Rose Theatre case,

but the Greenpeace judgment

recognised the applicant's standing to challenge ministerial decisions about the licensing of the

THORP nuclear plant at Sellafield.

Locus standi is therefore, no more than a matter of judicial

discretion depending on the circumstances, merit of the case, and the nature of the remedy sought. It

is submitted that this development does not provide a secure footing for class action or citizen suit.

It should be noted that private prosecutions in terms of environmental statutes containing criminal

provisions are becoming more common.

Locus standi rules which precedes Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in England

now governing the issue, shows a discernible diversity both within each particular judicial remedy

and between them. Where an individual seeks mandamus, he has to show that his legal interest had

been infringed but when a person is seeking certiorari or prohibition, the requirement is simpler. All

he has to do is to show sufficient interest or be a person aggrieved. The rules which apply to the

remedies of injunction and declaration required the plaintiff to show that the interference with the

public right was also an interference with a private right. In the absence of that and if no private

rights had been infringed, the plaintiff had to show special damage. On failure to fulfill either of

these two requirements, he had to make a request to the Attorney General. Although there is no

written Constitution nor a provision similar to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, the

courts in England have tended to adopt a liberal attitude towards locus standi as is demonstrated by

the statement of Lord Denning M.R. in Attorney-General Ex Rel. McWhirter v Independent

Broadcasting Authority,

where he said;

… I regard it as a matter of high constitutional principle that if there is good

ground for supposing that a government department or a public authority is

transgressing the law, or is about to transgress it, in a way that offends or

injures thousands of Her Majesty’s subjects, then in the last resort any of those

offended or injured can draw it to the attention of the courts of law and seek

to have the law enforced…

The liberal attitude of the English courts towards locus standi is tempered by the discretionary nature

of the remedies involved, and the judicial and judicious exercise of the discretion by the courts,

which ensures that only those whose claims are undeserved are not successful. The issue of locus

Tobias P Van Reenen ‘Locus Standi In South African Environmental Law: A Reappraisal In International And

Comparative Perspective’ (1995) 2 SAJELP

Lord Denning The Discipline of Law (1979) 143.

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504; discussed by JDC

Harte Journal of Environmental Law (1990) (2) 224.

On the basis of the nature of Greenpeace and the extent of its interest in the issues raised, the remedy Greenpeace

sought to achieve and the nature of the relief sought. R v Inspectorate of Pollution, Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1994] 2

CMLR 548, [1994] 4 All ER 329, discussed by J Purdue (1994) 6 Journal of Environmental Law 297.

G. Betlem, ‘Standing for Ecosystems : Going Dutch’ 1 Cambridge University (1995) (1) (54) 167-168.

Tobias P. Van Reenen. (n. 18)

(1973) (1973) 2 WLR 344 at 375

Page | 76

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

standi in England is now governed by Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and Order 53,

rule 3(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Order 53, rule 3(5) provides that:

No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the

High Court has been obtained in accordance with the rules of court; and

the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it

considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which

the application relates.

The House of Lord interpreted this provision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex. P. National

Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

a case in which casual labourers employed

by Fleet Street newspapers were in the habit of adopting fictitious names to avoid paying income

tax. The Inland Revenue Commission (IRC) concluded an agreement with relevant trade unions,

labourers and employers, that, if tax returns for the previous two years were filed, payment of all

taxes owed for the period prior to this would be waived. The National Federation challenged this

agreement, maintaining that the IRC had acted ultra vires its authority in concluding such a bargain

and sought a declaration to that effect and an order of mandamus compelling the IRC to collect taxes

owed prior to the two-limit agreed by the IRC. The IRC challenged the National Federation, claiming

that it lacked locus standi to bring the action. Their Lordships found that the National Federation

lacked locus standi, while highlighting the distinction between the standing of a person to bring a

case, and the merits of his case as well as demonstrated that these two factors could not always be

assessed independently of each other. As Lord Wilberforce declared:

There may be simple cases in which it can be seen at the earliest stage that

the person applying for judicial review has no interest at all, or no sufficient

interest to support the application; then it would be quite correct at the

threshold to refuse him leave to apply… But in other cases, this will not be

so. In these it will be necessary to consider the powers or the duties in law of

those against whom the relief is asked, the position of the applicant in relation

to those powers and duties, and the breach of those said to have been

committed.

The National Federation’s inability to prove any illegality in the amnesty granted by the IRC resulted

in their failure to establish locus standi. Nevertheless, in the same case, Lord Diplock emphasised

that:

It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a

pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public-spirited taxpayer,

were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the

matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the

unlawful conduct stopped.

This judgment which raised the question of whether the issue of locus standi should be assessed as

a preliminary issue is redundant now in view of the explicit provisions of Section 31(3) of the

Supreme Court Act 1981 which requires that the issue of locus standi be resolved at the leave stage.

However, it can be seen from the speeches delivered in the above cases that, a liberal attitude is

adopted in the English courts towards locus standi. Such a departure from the view that individuals

[1982] AC 617

Page | 77

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

should only be able to vindicate their private legal rights is not only commendable but also long

overdue.

3. Locus standi in the Nigerian Legal System

Locus standi denotes the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court, sufficient connection to a

harm based on a law or action challenged, to support the party’s interest in the case.

It is predicated

on the assumption that no court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has

a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Under the Nigerian law, the claimant must have the legal

capacity to invoke the judicial power entrenched in Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, 1999. He must show that he has a stake in the subject matter, and must be able

to establish that what he suffers or the injury to his person is the consequence of the defendant’s act

or conduct.

Locus Standi is a threshold issue in litigations that affects access to justice, jurisdiction,

judicial powers and remediation of civil wrongs in the field of constitutional and administrative law.

To establish locus standi, the litigant must be able to show that he has sustained or is in immediate

danger of sustaining some direct injuries as a result of the action of the defendant over and above

every other person affected by such actions. In the case of Adesanya v The President of Nigeria.

Fatayi Williams JSC defines locus standi, as ‘the legal capacity of a person to institute proceedings

in a court of law or tribunal.’

The definition above implies that that there is a standing to question legality of an action and

the party seeking relief must show that he is sufficiently affected by it to justify his invocation of

judicial authority to question its validity and there is a stand to challenge the action on a particular

ground, for example, that the action violates the right of the person who seeks to redress it.

Issue of the standing of a plaintiff in environmental rights and public nuisance cases has

generated an enormous amount of controversy in Nigerian courts largely due to the fact that judges

have diverse opinion in their interpretation in spite of the effect of various international and national

legal frameworks; the jurisprudence under Nigerian environmental laws is still unsettled.

The case

of SERAC v Nigeria

opened up the controversial point on the potential of a human rights approach

to such issues. The importance of resolving the right to sue in the light of the expanding role of the

states in the protection of social and economic rights, and the need to protect public interest as against

private rights cannot therefore be over-emphasised

This is because the lack of ability on the part

of members of the community to invoke the jurisdiction of courts to hold governments and its

agencies to account for damages for environmental degradation and other means of livelihood of

people can lead to disinterest or disillusionment in the protection of the environment.

Challenges confronting environmental degradation are not uncommon across the globe.

Countries and courts across jurisdictions, common and civil, have however developed legal means

of confronting such challenges aimed at removing the technical legal blocks and to guarantee that

interests and rights of individual involved are not trampled upon with impunity. A major approach

in some jurisdictions is the relaxation of the requirement of victims’ to access the court of law to

Obadina Ibrahim, ‘Nigerian Supreme Court's Stealth Relaxation of Locus Standi in Environmental litigation: Redirecting

Judicial Approach to Public Interest Litigation’ Journal of Private and Business Law (2021) (2) (2) 200-218

Ibid.

(1981) 2 NCLR 358

(n 26)

Obadina Ibrahim, (n 26)

(2001) AHLR 60 (ACHPR 2001).

RS Gupta, ‘Widdening the Rules of Locus Standi’ Journal of India Law Institute (1984) ( 24 ) (26), 424-444 at 424

Soc. and Econ. Rights Action Ctr. v.Nig, Comm. 155/96, 15th ACHPR AAR Annex V (2000-2001)

Page | 78

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

seek redress where their rights to life, property, environment and other fundamental rights have been

violated or threatened.

There is a lot of literature on the common law doctrine of locus standi and myriad of judicial

pronouncements on the need for balance by adopting a liberal approach in other to protect citizens

rights and that of preventing meddlesome interlopers i.e. to prevent litigants without genuine

interests on the subject matter of litigation to avoid opening up a floodgate of litigation.

Megarry J put it, ‘the courts are not places for those who wish to meddle in things which are no

concern of theirs, just for the pleasure of interfering or of proclaiming abroad some favourable

doctrine of theirs, or of indulging a taste of forensic display’

For far too long, the Nigerian judiciary has come out with a mixed bag of interpretations on

the concept of locus standi thus compounding the problems of hapless litigants in seeking

environmental justice.

In some cases, standing to sue is given only if a person has a legal right of his own or if his

legal right is adversely affected, or if he suffers or is in imminent danger of suffering an injury,

damage or detriment personal to himself. This narrow interpretation informed the court’s decision

in the case of Olawoyin v AG of the Northern Region

where the trial judge dismissed the action on

the ground that no right of the plaintiff has been infringed upon, and that it is contrary to the principle

to make the declaration sought for in vacuum. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Unsworth FJ ruled

that, that the appellant has not in his claim alleged any interest.

This narrow approach was

jettisoned by the Supreme Court in Ariori v Elemo,

where Kayode Eso JSC preferred a liberal

interpretation to the restrictive approach. Thus, in AG of Kaduna State v Hassan,

the lower courts

struck out the case for lack of standing following the precedent of a higher court. However, the

Supreme Court held that the respondent has locus standi. Oputa (JSC) observed that:

…There is perhaps no question more fundamental in the whole process of

adjudication than that of access to justice, access to the courts. He who cannot

even reach the court cannot talk of justice from these courts. It is in this

context and for the fundamental reason that many legal systems are now

relaxing the erstwhile severity of their rules governing locus standi.

Subsequently, in Badejo v Federal Minister of Education,

a case involving the enforcement of the

non-justiciable right to education, the Supreme Court granted standing to the plaintiff in a public

injury on the basis that she can sue for herself only, and not for herself and on behalf of other victims.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria laid down the constitutional basis of locus standi in the case

of Abraham Adesanya v The President of Nigeria & anor

regarded as the locus classicus on locus

standi in Nigeria. While Nnamani and Idigbe JJCS agreed with Bello JSC that section 6 (6) of the

See Emeka Polycarp Amechi, ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Policy Reform: Realising the Right to

Environment in Africa’ (Verlag Dr. Müller (VDM): Saarbrucken, (2010) 180-181

Emeka Amechi ‘Environmental Pollution and Human Rights in Nigeria: Some Reflections On The Linkages and The Need

For Effective Enforcement Of Environmental Regulations’ The Nigerian Journal of Contemporary Law (2012/1) 18 (1) 93-

129.

Re Argentum Reductions (UK) Limited 1975 1 WLR 186, p. 190

(1967) 1 All NLR, 269.

(1971) ANLR 608 at P. 613. See also the following cases: Mohammed v. A. G. of Kaduna State and Anor (1980) 1 PLR,

701, A G Eastern Nigeria v AG Federation (1964) ANLR, 224; Obadina Ibrahim (n 30)

(1983) 1 SCNLR, 15

(1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 522.

(1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 51) 554

(n 28)

Page | 79

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

1979 Constitution has laid to rest the issue of locus standi, Sowemimo and Obaseki JJSC reasoned

with Fatayi Williams CJN. Uwais JSC who could have resolved the deadlock, took the view that the

interpretation to be given to section 6 (6) (b) depended on the facts and circumstances of each case,

and that no hard and fast rule should be applied. In the end, the Supreme Court held that Senator

Adesanya had no locus standi in the case, since he had participated earlier in the deliberation of the

Senate on the same matter.

This case was a missed opportunity for the Supreme Court to lay to

rest the confused state of affairs on this matter. Instead, the Court compounded it.

In the case of Bello v AG Oyo State

the deceased was charged with and convicted of armed

robbery. He appealed against the judgment, but before his appeal could be heard, he had been

executed. His relatives brought an action, claiming compensation on the ground of breach of the

fundamental right of the deceased to life under section 30 of the 1979 Constitution. The Supreme

Court held that the applicants had locus standi to bring the action, and awards them the reliefs sought.

This liberal approach of the Supreme Court has been extended to criminal matters as in the case of

Fawehinmi v Akilu & Ors

which dealt with the right of a person to enforce the right of another,

thus opening up a new vista as locus standi has hitherto been mostly invoked in civil proceedings.

Obaseki JSC therein said:

...it is only on rare occasions that the courts have cause to consider the

question of locus standi in criminal proceedings. It frequently arises for

consideration in civil proceedings... Criminal law is addressed to everyone as

the rule they are bound to obey on pains of punishment, to ensure order in the

society and maintain the peaceful existence of the society. The peace of the

society is the responsibility of everyone and as far as protection against crime

is concerned, everyone is the others’ keeper.

This liberal approach has been followed in such cases as in PKC Isagba v Benson Alegbe.

Furthermore, in the case of Adewole & Ors v Jakande,

the applicants challenged the proposal of

the Lagos State Government to take over private schools compulsorily. It was argued that the

appellants had no locus standi by the learned counsel to the defendants. The court held that the

appellant has locus standi to sue. The learned judge, quoting Lord Denning, said, ‘These courts are

open to every citizen who comes and complains that the law is being broken… He is not to be turned

away on some technical objection of locus standi.’

4. Locus standi in Environmental Litigation in Nigeria

The increase in environmental consciousness and the need for the law to be responsive to societal

needs must have motivated the inclusion of environmental protection in the 1999 Constitution as a

fundamental objective and directive principle of state policy.

This means that environmental

protection has become a matter deserving of serious attention in Nigeria.

The Constitution has

vested the courts with the powers to determine any question as to civil rights and obligations between

Ibid.

(1986) 5 NWLR 820

(1987) 4 NWLR (pt 67) 797.

(n 26)

(n 45) p. 832

(1981) 1 NCLR 218 at 290

(1981) 1 NCLR 290.

Section 20, Cap C23 LFN. 2004.

(n 26)

Page | 80

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

government or authority and any person in Nigeria. The policy objective in section 6(6) (b) is the

removal of the obstacles erected by common law requirement against individuals bringing actions

before the court against government and its institutions.

This it was hoped would provide leverage

in the application of the doctrine which expectation has been dashed as can be seen in Owodunmi v

Registered Trustees of Celestial Church & Ors.,

where the Supreme Court held that section 6 (6)

(b) of the Constitution does not prescribe the locus standi of a person wanting to invoke the

jurisdiction and powers of the court but prescribes the extent of the judicial powers of the courts.

In AG Ondo State v AG Federation,

the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that “courts

cannot enforce any of the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution except [sic] the National

Assembly has enacted specific laws for their enforcement.”

According to the Supreme Court,

Chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution (which provides guidance as to the constitutional policy of

governance) continues to be a mere expression, ‘which cannot be enforced by legal process but

would be seen as a failure of duty and responsibility of state organs if they acted in clear disregard

of them

The court also held that the contents of Chapter II could be made justiciable by legislation.

This, however, means that public interest litigation against illegal government actions or

unconstitutional laws may not be sustained in the Nigerian courts, because the applicant will lack

the locus standi to do so, since one of the tests set by the courts for locus standi is that the subject

matter must be justiciable.

However, Kabiri-Whyte, JSC in Adediran v Interland Transport Ltd,

held that the

distinction between public nuisance and private nuisance at common law on the right of action in

public nuisance is inconsistent with the provisions of section 6 (6) (b) of the 1979 Constitution.

This means therefore that this provision gives a litigant, especially in environmental matters, the

necessary standing to institute an action against environmental violators even if he has not been

affected personally.

In addition, section 36 of the Constitution provides for right of fair hearing.

Under subsection (1), “… a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a

court or other tribunals established by law.…” Also, in section 36 (4) a citizen is guaranteed a right

of fair hearing in civil and criminal matters, denial of which constitutes denial of access to justice.

Again, in section 46 (1) of the Constitution, a person’s human right is guaranteed under Chapter IV

of the 1999 Constitution to the extent that if his right has been, is being or is likely to be infringed

on in any state, he has the right to apply to a High Court of that State for redress.

Section 1 (3) of

the 1999 Constitution renders void any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of Constitution.

Following from these, the principle of locus standi, which is a common law doctrine, being

inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Regrettably, the liberal approach to the interpretation of locus standi adopted by the Supreme Court

and applied by some lower courts have not been consistently applied in environmental litigation.

Nigeria is endowed with minerals and natural resources coupled with a robust regulatory framework

NNPC v Fawehinmi & ors, (1998) 7 NWLR (pt 559) 602.

(2000) 10 NWLR (Pt 675) 315

(2002) 9 NWLR (pt 772) at 222

P.N.Bhagwati, ‘Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation’ Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (1985) 23 556;

Google Scholar at 569–70.

(1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 20) 40.

In pari material with s.6 (6) (b) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(n 26)

Ibid.

Busari v Oseni (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt 237) 557.

(.n 26)

Page | 81

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

but sadly, has minimal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations due to the issue of locus

standi.

Oputa JSC

has in this connection said ‘the legal concept of standing or locus standi is

predicated on the assumption that no court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the

applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest.’ Where a litigant therefore fails to show peculiar

and sufficient interest over and above others, his suit could fail.

This goes to show that the

interpretation given to the locus standi requirement was so strict such that in the absence of locus

standi, the claim could fail.

Locus standi therefore constitutes a stumbling block to public-interest litigation and oil

companies have taken full advantage of this restriction to employ unhealthy practices in exploration

and mining of Nigeria’s natural resources

as happened in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation,

where the Appellant (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch;

a non-governmental organisation had commenced an action at the Federal High Court of Nigeria

against the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC); a state-owned oil company over the

oil spillage in Acha Community of Isukwuato Local Government Area of Abia State, The respondent

/ defendant (NNPC) had been carrying out oil exploration activities for over 25 years and constructed

oil pipelines beneath and around Ineh and Aku Streams in Isikwuato Local Government Area of

Abia State, Nigeria. The pipelines allegedly burst and spilled crude oil from beneath the earth into

the two rivers and its environs which the respondents refused to clean up.

The plaintiff sought:

(a) The reinstatement, restoration and remediation of the impaired and/contaminated

environment in Acha autonomous community of Isukwuato Local Government Area of Abia

State of Nigeria particularly the Ineh and Aku streams contaminated by the oil spill.

(b) Provisions of portable water supply as a substitute to the polluted and contaminated Ineh/Aku

streams, which are the only and / or major source of water supply to the community,

health effect of the spillage and / or contaminated streams

The Appellant asserted that the oil spillage negatively affected the lives of the inhabitants of the

Community and made life unbearable. On its part, the defendant / respondent NNPC filed a defence

in which it raises a preliminary objection, challenging the locus standi of the Plaintiff/ a Non-

Governmental Organisation (NGO) to commence the action for lack of sufficient interest. The

respondent/defendant claims that the Plaintiff is not a member of the affected community and has

not showed that it suffered any peculiar damage and therefore prayed the trial court to strike out the

suit.

The Plaintiff/Appellant in response urged the trial Court to relax the concept of locus standi

as it relates to environmental litigation especially in view of the fact that the Plaintiff / Appellant is

a Non-Governmental Organization set up to advance public interest litigation, and had instituted the

case in the interest of the public. The trial court however accepted the position of the defendant /

respondent and struck out the case for want of sufficient interest and locus standi to bring the action.

RA Mmadu, ‘Judicial Attitude to Environmental Litigation and Access to Environmental Justice in Nigeria: Lessons from

Kiobel’ Afe Babalola University Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (2013) 1 (2) 149-170.

Kaduna State v Hassan (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 8) 483 at 524 G.

Badejo v Minister of Education [1996] 8 NWLR, pt. 464, p.15

(n 53)

(n 26)

[2019] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518

Page | 82

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

The Appellant NGO appealed the decision of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal which

dismissed the appeal. On further appeal to the Supreme Court where the issue for determination was;

‘whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the Appellant's appeal

for want of locus standi to maintain the suit?’ The respondent contended that the Attorney General

is the only proper person imbued with the standing to sue in the circumstances of the suit, and that

extending the scope of locus standi would amount to opening the floodgate of litigation.

The appellant in response argued that the sole issue for determination gave rise to three

considerations, which should be interpreted in the interest of the public to wit: (a) locus standi on

environmental matters; (b) civil rights and obligations; and (c) Extending the scope of locus standi.

The appellant submitted that a plaintiff who does not seek to establish a private right but

rather the maintenance of a law for the public interest has locus standi in the matter irrespective of

whether he has any sufficient interest in the matter or has suffered any injury above every other

member of the society in respect of the matter. He urged the court to expand the concept of locus

standi for public spirited litigation as was urged in Fawehimi v Akilu.

He contended that since the dominant objective of the rule of law is to ensure the observance of the

law, it can best be achieved by permitting any person to put the judicial machinery in motion in

Nigeria whereby any citizen can bring an action in respect of a public derelict as has been guaranteed

in Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria,

which gives every citizen the right to

commence an action where his rights and obligations are threatened.

The section provides;

(6)… The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions

of this section - (b) shall extend, to all matters between persons, or between

government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and

proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the

civil rights and obligations of that person;

Allowing the appellant’s action therefore strengthens the rule of law, social and economic

justice. He contended that an environmental rights action maintained in the public interest deserves

merit and should be heard because the environment belongs to no one but all and must be kept clean

and safe for both humans and other living things. In the circumstances of the case, the affected

streams (Ineh and Aku Streams) are the only source of water supply to the community and the oil

pollution is deleterious to both the lives of the indigenes and the marine life.

Counsel for the Appellant therefore emphasised the need for a clean-up and reinstatement

of the affected community which has lasted over ten years, with devastating effects and the Appellant

is only a public spirited entity with no ulterior interest to serve. On the other hand, the respondent is

a statutory corporation and its Board Members appointed by the Federal Executive. It will therefore

be absurd to expect the Government to sue itself. Counsel for the appellant therefore concluded that

if the appellant is denied the locus standi to maintain the action, it is unlikely that there will be any

other challenger thereby leaving the environment without protection or remediation.

The respondent/NNPC urged that the Appellant is a busybody without peculiar interest

relying on judicial precedents in Keyamo v House of Assembly, Lagos State

and Abraham

Adesanya v President Federal Republic of Nigeria,

where the courts are of the opinion that locus

standi restrictions are in place to keep interlopers away and restrict court access to only those that

(1982) 18 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 11) 1265 at 1301

Section 6(6)(b) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

(2000) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 680) 196)

(1981) 2 N.C.L.R. 385

Page | 83

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

have actually suffered a peculiar injury or harm. Therefore, there was no need for the expansion of

the doctrine of locus standi. The appellant relied on the decisions and approach from Indian

Jurisdiction such as in Maharaj Singh v State,

and Gupta v Union of India,

where the Indian

Supreme Court held that it is in the interest of justice to liberalise the traditional rule on locus standi.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the present case also referred to Metha v Union of

India,

where a successful action was taken against the government to abate the nuisance of waste

dumping and misuse of the River Ganges.

In reaching the decision, the lead Justice of the Supreme Court pointed out that since the

Interpretation Act

defines “person” to include “anybody” or “persons corporate” or

“unincorporated”, it can be regarded that the Appellant is a person and by virtue of his arguments it

is proper to find in favour of the appellants’ locus standi. The court therefore took ‘the humble view

that in environmental matters such as the instant one, NGOs such as the plaintiff in this case have

the requisite standi to sue.’ The court noted further that the respondent being a public authority has

acted in violation of its constitutional and statutory obligations to ensure a safe and healthy

environment and that the defaults have amounted to public injury. The learned Justice noted that the

true purpose of the judicial function is to preserve order. Further, that there is nothing in the

Constitution that restricts power to enforce public duties to only Attorney General to the exclusion

of any other person. The Supreme Court therefore held that since the interest of the Appellant is clear

and not motivated by mischief, it is in the interest of justice to not shut the Appellant out. Aka’ahs,

JSC

agreed with the above position and noted the increasing concern about climate change,

depletion of the ozone layer, waste management, flooding, global warming, decline of wildlife, air,

land and water pollution. He holds that the issue of environmental protection against degradation has

become a contemporary issue. He therefore agreed that persons such as the Plaintiff/Appellant being

in the vanguard of protecting the environment should be encouraged to ensure that actions or

omissions by government agencies or multi-national oil companies that tend to pollute the

environment are checked. He specifically noted that; ‘Since other commonwealth countries such as

England, Australia and India have relaxed their rigidity in the application of the concept of locus

standi in public interest litigation, Nigeria should follow suit.’ He expressed concerns at the

constraints faced by communities affected by the spillage who may not have the financial muscle to

sue and if good spirited organisations such as the Plaintiff is denied access to sue, it is the affected

communities that stand to lose. Ejembi Eko JSC while concurring with the lead judgment restates

the position that Courts, in recent times are inclined to apply more liberal tests on access to court,

and that the trend is moving away from the restrictive and technical approach to the question of locus

standi. While concurring that the appellant has locus standi, he specifically notes that; ‘The approach

these days is one finding out whether the plaintiff has a genuine grievance to seek the adjudication

of the issue.’ Onnoghen JSC (while also concurring with the lead judgment), puts the issue of locus

standi in more direct terms by holding that where an NGO seeks the enforcement of an obligation

under law vis-à-vis rights of the affected communities to maintain a healthy environment which

extends to their forests, rivers, air and land, they should be heard, noting that;

The plaintiff cannot, in anyway be described as a busy body or interloper.

This is a public interest litigation in which the Chambers of the Honourable

Attorney General of the Federation traditionally holds sway by the law on

U. P AIR (1976) SC 2607

47 AIR (1980) SC 1622

(1989) LRC 885 41

Cap 123 Vol 7 LFN. 2004

(n 65) p. 580-581, paras. G-B

Page | 84

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

(sic) locus standi has grown beyond that and now encompasses public spirited

individuals and NGOs.

The Supreme Court in this case was therefore of the view that the lower courts were in error to hold

that the appellant has no locus standi to institute the action which is aimed at saving the environment

and lives of the people. In resolving the issues, the Supreme Court made reference to the Indian case

of Maharaj Singh v State59

where the court advocated for the need to do substantial justice in

liberating the rule on locus standi. Quoting, Bhagwat J in Gupta v President of India and Ors

wherein it was held that ‘…the rule of locus standi is of ancient vintage and it arose during an era

when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born.’

The case of Abraham Adesanya v the Federal Repblic of Nigeria & Anor

can be regarded

rightly as having introduced confusion on locus standi into the Nigerian judicial system. However

the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum

Corporation

gave a decision that has the potential to transform the doctrine in Nigeria especially

with respect to environmental rights and arguably on all socio-economic rights when the court laid

the foundation for the protection of environmental rights by allowing for the enforcement of

environmental rights by a Non-Governmental Organisation. But the stealth with which the Court

gave access to court for the protection of the environment still gives room for doubts over the ability

of the decision to be a precedent considering the diverging opinions of the lower courts and the

Appeal Court on the case.

However in the light of the ambivalent approach of Nigerian courts to

environmental, social and economic rights generally, the unsettled approach to the requirement of

standing for plaintiffs in such a matter and the possible effect of the decisions on the ability of NGOs

to bring actions on behalf of litigants within the extant legal frameworks in the Nigerian Legal

System, the decision gives great hope and holds great prospects. The Justices of the Supreme Court

touched upon the fact that in India, the courts without any statutory enactment see the need to do

justice for the public with respect to environmental degradation, since maintaining a clean

environment is the responsibility of all persons in the country as held in Maharaj Singh v State UP

This emerging trend was evident in the Indian case of SP Gupta v President of India,

where the

Indian Supreme Court prescribed the modern rule on standing thus:

…Where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate

class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or

any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal

provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury

or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons

is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically

in disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member

U.P. AIR (1976) S. C2607.

1982 2 SCR 265.

[2019] 5 NWLR (PT 1666) 518

(n 65)

(n 30 )

.AIR 1976 SC 2607 .

AIR 1982 SC 149

Page | 85

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order

or writ, in the High Court…

The effect of this decision is that it is has become settled law in India that the procedural burden

imposed by the doctrine of locus standi has virtually been obliterated in the Indian judicial system,

courtesy of the activist stance of the Supreme Court of India. In India, the principle of locus standi

has been significantly employed for the enforcement of fundamental rights through petitions filed in

the Supreme Court and other court of sub-ordinate jurisdiction. In the Indian landmark case of

Husanara Khatoon v State of Bihar,

where a petition filed by an advocate was entertained by the

court on grounds of public interest, the court departed from the strict demand that petitions be filed

only by persons whose fundamental right has been violated to petitions filed by even third persons

for the enforcement of rights of another person. Such liberal approach is commendable because it

covers situations where financial constraint or even lack of awareness could debar people whose

rights have been violated from seeking redress in courts. This augurs well for environmental

litigation in Nigeria if the Nigerian courts would follow this positive example and consolidate on its

own achievement so far in that regard.

In the English case of Rex v IRC Ex p. Fed of Self – Employed,

Lord Diplock expressed

the common law rule and position that the rules as to standing cannot be found in any statute but

were made by judges. The implication is that courts are at liberty to determine when to relax the

rules taking into consideration public requirements.

Alex C Ekeke,

in his study looks at the context of the interpretation of the principle of

locus standi by Nigerian courts and its effect on access to justice and public interest litigation by

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and individuals. He examines the impact of the provision

for locus standi on the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. He compares the

interpretation of this concept in the common law jurisdictions such as Kenya, India, the United

Kingdom and South Africa which once interpreted the concept strictly but have now moved away

from such interpretation to a more liberal one. His comparison shows that Nigerian courts are now

isolated in their position and advocates a need for Nigerian courts to conform to international best

practice.

Furthermore. the liberal interpretation for relaxation of the locus standi rule has been

strengthened by the Preamble 3 (e) to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009

which provides that: ‘The Court shall encourage and welcome public interest litigations in the human

rights field and no human rights case may be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi.’

As Order 1 Rule 2 Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 defines an “Applicant”

to include a party who files an application or on whose behalf an application is filed, the courts

should look beyond the technicalities of locus standi. The proper term to fit this decision can be

found in the dictum of Danjuma JCA in Momoh v Adedoyin

where he points out thus:

...where rights exists, they must not be scuttled on technical grounds. The

image of justice lying prostrate and the law standing erect in triumph is no

This case is in contrast with the US case of Inuit Circumpolar Conference v. Bush Administration, Case c-583/curia/euro,

available online at <www.ciel.org/publications/copco_Handout_Ejciel> accessed May 26 2019. The Inuit case highlights

how climate change could be addressed in international jurisdiction.

(1980 1. SCC 81).

(1982) A.C [H. L. E] 640 – 641

Alex Cyril Ekeke, ‘Access to Justice and Locus Standi before Nigerian Courts’ (2014) A dissertation submitted in

fulfilment of the requirement of the degree LLM, Faculty of Law University of Pretoria. https://repository.up.ac.za>

(accessed 2 June, 2022)

(2018) 12 NWLR (Pt 1633) 34 CA. at Page 378, Paras. C – E.

Page | 86

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

longer the dominant hymn. The altar of technicality and their worshippers

have been decapitated, such that the pillars and safeguards of the law meant

for.

This decision therefore is an advancement of the law in Nigeria and constitutes a veritable tool in the

hands of public-spirited NGOs and persons.

The more traditional concern of the environmentalists is the protection of the environment

within the purview of statutory enactments and subject to sanctions and public remedies. Courts in

some jurisdictions have in line with international human rights instruments and judicial

pronouncement especially on social and economic rights, adopted public interest litigation as a tool

to address social, cultural and economic issues aimed at delivering public goods to its citizens. If the

courts don’t wish to be burdened with trivial or theoretical damages, they have an in-built mechanism

to address such issues.

The locus standi rule continues to be the greatest hurdle facing a private plaintiff who brings

a public action for damages because plaintiffs who are permitted to sue generally prevail if their

injury is connected to the defendant's actions. The concern that liberal standing results in a

multiplicity of actions is accommodated when public nuisance suits are brought as a class action.

Instead of barring these tort claims or denying a right to stand because of potential multiplicity of

the claimants, courts have established procedures to handle the claims fairly and expeditiously,

especially through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules (FREPR) which liberalises

the process of enforcing human right actions including the environment. Indeed, there is no reason

to assume that public nuisance actions are not generally less burdensome on the courts than are

complex toxic torts. Moreover, by deterring pollution problems, public nuisance claims could reduce

the number of toxic tort actions the courts must handle.

The issue of standing to sue is critical to the development of legal jurisprudence and social

and economic right in legal systems. However, in Nigeria, no issue has impeded the success of

environmental justice like the issue of locus standi which is brought up where a concerned person

wishes to bring up an environmental rights suit against any respondent especially multinational oil

companies who wreck havoc on the environment in their operations with impunity. There is the need

to make the protection of the environment the responsibility of both private citizens as well as the

government.

5. Conclusion

Even though in line with cases from India, the court have embraced the principles of public interest

litigation especially for NGOs, the lower court and the Court of Appeal in some cases have still failed

to align with the requirement of liberalisation agenda under the FREP Rules for NGOs to be able to

enforce public rights. The unwillingness of the lower courts in Nigeria to make decisions about

public interest preferring to leave such decisions to the Attorney General even in the light of the

liberalisation of the right to enforce human rights by the FREPR is a cause for concern as it

establishes the lack of understanding of the basis for the establishment of the public policy rule and

the floodgate argument. The problem with this is that it increases the potential for a conflict of

interests in complex political and social situations. Requiring the permission of the AG to bring an

action against the State or Institution, where the AG is its employee or an appointee and provides

legal advice, is also contrary to the principles of nemo judex in causa sua. Therefore, the courts must

reject the old policy rationale to accommodate modern policy values including environmental

See Aliyu Bello v AG Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 826 at 886 p 22.

Oludayo G Amokaye, ‘Human Rights and Environmental Protection: The Necessary Connection’ UNILAG Journal of

Human Rights Law (2007) (1) (1) 89, 96-99;

Page | 87

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

degradation for the protection of health. Public nuisance can be addressed by the various

environmental statutes and regulations enacted across the federal and state houses of assemblies. The

existence of these statutes has rendered the continued application of the principles of public nuisance

redundant.

Public interest litigation will provide citizens acting as private attorneys general with an

opportunity to transform the public interest litigation into a powerful and influential tool that could

fill regulatory gaps left by environmental statutes.

Until there is unfettered environmental action, denial of justice for victims of environmental

degradation may continue.

The emerging philosophy is that an individual has a role to play in

public law. Also, even though the relaxation of the locus standi rule has helped in advancing justice

for human rights, it should come with a caveat. The objective of such a relaxation must not be lost

because of its potential for misuse. The potential for misuse was noted by the Indian Apex court in

Dattaraj Nathuj Thaware v State of Maharashtram AIR

where the court noted that;

the weapon of public interest should be used with due care and caution and

must not be misused. This is because the tool of public interest was devised

for the protection of the interests/rights of the poor and the weak, it cannot

now be used be used to create nuisance or obstruction of the administration

of justice.

The traditional concept of locus standi is losing acceptance and an individual should be able to

vindicate the rights which he is entitled to have protected under public law,

thereby bringing

Nigeria nearer to the achievement of actio popularis (citizen action). The “demystification” of the

locus standi is also important in public law in order to hold public authorities to account for their

unlawful acts. It will fundamentally increase the opportunities for public interest litigation generally

and environmental litigation specifically since parties often do not bring public law issues before the

court for personal gain. This will significantly reinforce the fundamental right of everyone to access

a court, and it can be fairly certain that the floodgates of litigation will not be opened nor will “busy

bodies” crash their way into the courts since the courts have discretion not to entertain frivolous

suits.

As Krishna Iyer J pointed out in the Indian case Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd)

v Union of India

‘it is essential that the rule of law must wean the people away from the lawless

street for the court of law’

6. Recommendations

A more liberal interpretation of standing where public-interest action has evolved through the

application of a 'sufficient interest’ test by the courts to include non-economic interests such as

“aesthetic interest” is advocated.

(26)

Rufus Akpofure Mmadu “Judicial Attitude to Environmental Litigation and Access to Environmental Justice in Nigeria:

Lessons from Kiobel” Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (2013)(1) (2); 149-170

(2005 SC 540)

See the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v Union of India & others. (2018) Supreme Court of India.

See however the case of Adeyinka Abosede Badejo (Suing by her next friend Dr Babafemi Badejo) v. Minister of

Education, [1996] 8 NWLR, (Pt. 464) p.15, where the Supreme Court appears to have resurrected the strict and

outdated view on locus standi.

Plasket , Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 296

1981 (1) SCC 568 at 584.

See A Homburger 'Private suits in the public interest in the United States of America'Buffalo LR (1973/4) (23) 343; 400-

401; AL Brown Environmental justice: New civil rights frontier' (1993) 29 Trial 48-53.

Page | 88

UNIZIK LAW JOURNAL 20 (1) 2024

It is recommended that in litigation concerning serious environmental issues, courts should

desists from characterising human rights and public nuisance claims. The paper advocates that courts

should be consistent in its interpretation of the rule and take the final step to reject the restrictive

application of locus standi rule in environmental and public interest cases outright. Private plaintiffs

and communities must not be barred from litigating their claim by an outdated special rule if public

interest litigation claims can fill gaps in the law, and help establish standards of reasonable conduct

for multinational companies. This will not only help in protecting the environment but will also

obviate the need to resort to self-help by aggrieved and frustrated litigants which does the society no

good.