Examining Fundamental Rights Jurisdiction of Federal High Court and State High Court in Nigeria

The constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and State High Courts in the enforcement of fundamental rights in Nigeria presents an important intersection between constitutional rights protection and the allocation of judicial jurisdiction. Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) empowers a person alleging that a provision of Chapter IV has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened to apply to a High Court in the relevant State for redress. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 further facilitate access to judicial remedies for violations of fundamental rights. However, the apparent overlap between this jurisdiction and the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by section 251 of the Constitution has generated significant jurisprudential debate. This article examines the nature and scope of the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and State High Courts in fundamental-rights applications, with particular attention to the meaning of “High Court in that State,” the effect of section 251, and the distinction between substantive fundamental-rights claims and claims in which human-rights allegations are merely incidental. It analyses relevant constitutional provisions, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, and leading judicial authorities, including Jack v University of Agriculture, Makurdi and Gafar v Government of Kwara State. The article argues that section 46 establishes a special constitutional jurisdiction intended to ensure effective and accessible protection of fundamental rights and that the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Courts should not be unnecessarily restricted by an over-expansive application of section 251. It concludes that a purposive interpretation of the Constitution, consistent with the constitutional commitment to effective protection of fundamental rights, is necessary to prevent technical jurisdictional objections from undermining access to justice.