Locus Standi After Fawehinmi: Has the Threshold Really Moved?

Locus standi is the legal capacity to institute proceedings. For decades, Nigerian courts applied the restrictive test laid down in Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: a claimant had to show that his own civil rights and obligations were directly affected before the court would hear him. The result was a body of public-interest litigation that died at the preliminary-objection stage.

The loosening

The Supreme Court's decision in Fawehinmi v. Akilu marked the first significant crack. The court held that every Nigerian has an interest in the due administration of criminal justice, and allowed a private legal practitioner to seek to compel an investigation into a killing. Later decisions, notably Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC, went further. There, the Supreme Court expressly recognised the standing of a non-governmental organisation to sue over environmental damage affecting a community in which it had no proprietary interest.

Two threads justify the shift. The first is the constitutional text: section 6(6)(b) speaks of disputes as to civil rights and obligations, but it does not require that those rights be exclusive to the claimant. The second is the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, whose preamble directs courts to encourage public-interest litigation and expressly welcomes applications brought by human rights activists and NGOs acting on behalf of others.

What has not changed

Practitioners should not overstate the liberalisation. Outside constitutional and public-interest contexts, the traditional test remains robust. A claimant challenging a commercial decision, a land allocation or an appointment must still demonstrate a specific interest that goes beyond the general grievance of a citizen. Courts continue to strike out actions where the claimant is, in substance, a busybody.

Equally, standing in respect of pre-election matters is now governed by an express statutory rule. Section 285(14) of the Constitution and the Electoral Act confine the right to challenge a party's primaries to aspirants who participated in those primaries. No amount of public spirit will confer standing on an outsider.

Practical guidance

Three points are worth carrying into a pleading.

First, plead standing affirmatively. Do not leave the court to infer it. Set out the connection between the claimant and the subject matter in the statement of claim or supporting affidavit.

Second, choose the procedural vehicle deliberately. A claim framed under the Fundamental Rights Rules attracts the liberal preamble; the same complaint framed as an ordinary originating summons may not.

Third, anticipate the objection. Where standing is arguable, address it in the written address rather than waiting for the reply.

Conclusion

The direction of travel is towards access. But the movement has been incremental and context-specific rather than a wholesale abolition of the requirement. The safest working assumption is that a Nigerian court will open its doors widely where constitutional rights or public resources are at stake, and considerably less widely everywhere else.