On February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a landmark judgment in A-G of Abia State & ors v Imo Transport Company Limited: SC/284/2017 (unreported). It started when in September, 2011, the A-G of Abia State summoned ITC Ltd before a Magistrate Court to answer to a complaint on why the Company failed to pay the sum of N4,200,000 being Infrastructural Development Levy payable to the Government of Abia State and thereby committed an offence punishable under the State Development Fund Law of 2010.

Upon being served, ITC Ltd commenced an originating summons in the high Court praying for, inter alia an order prohibiting the Magistrate Court from entertaining any proceedings to enforce the payment same being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Taxes and Levies (Approved List of Collection) Act, 2004.

In the obnoxious bid to increase internally generated revenue, most of which sink into the pockets of the corrupt political class, State Governments create fashionable but illicit project nomenclatures just to tax the people. State Governments have taken over Local Governments’ constitutionally prescribed functions, cloak their illegal agents with official authority of the State, engage gangsters and unleash them on unarmed citizens.

When this cropped up in the instant situation, ITC Ltd challenged the law at the High Court. Expectedly, the High Court held that the suit failed in its entirety and refused all the eight reliefs in the originating motion. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, ITC Ltd challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal which by its judgment delivered in November 2016 allowed the appeal and granted all the reliefs claimed therein.

Dissatisfied, the A-G proceeded to the Supreme Court. In their Appellant’s Brief, he raised two issues for determination the first being whether the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act, 2004 is not wholly or partially inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The second was whether the Abia State Physical Planning and Infrastructural Development Fund Law 2010 (as amended) is valid and made within the legislative competence of the House of Assembly. The issues for determination did not relate to any alleged error in the judgment. Agim JSC in his lead judgment first picked on this blunder and stated thus:

An issue for determination must relate to an alleged error in the judgment appealed against. No valid argument or determination concerning an alleged error in any part of a judgment can proceed on the basis of issues that prima facie do not relate to any alleged error in the judgment appealed against. An appeal contends that the judgment appealed against is wrong in certain respects. The issues raised for determination must be pin point precise on the alleged wrongfulness of the judgment…

The appeal which was supposed to have been terminated at this stage was re-ignited by this commendable show of compassion for justice by Agim, JSC in his lead judgment. He stated that “in view of the public importance of the subject matter of this appeal, I think it will be in the greater public interest and accord with substantial justice to consider the grounds of appeal indicated at the end of each issue as the grounds from which each it (sic) is derived together with each issue to make out a functional issue for determination.”

Before taking further step, it is necessary to examine the legal meaning of “public interest.” The above pronouncement is certainly a strategic policy to blend justice with public expectation.

This is, of course, the craving of Nigerians who, for one reason or the other, think that the Judiciary has become too weak and impotent and is currently designed to protect the strong and the mighty who are determined to crush the poor and the vulnerable.

In Nigerian jurisprudence, “public interest” signifies the welfare, collective rights, security and well-being of the general public as recognised and protected by law, especially in situations where judicial discretion or interpretation is required. It represents those considerations that advance justice, good governance, rule of law, protection of rights, public safety and the orderly functioning of society.

It does not mean public opinion, public excitement, political pressure or majority preference, but rather the legal and constitutional interests of the public. See Dokubo-Asari v Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The courts have a sacred duty to protect the rights of the people. In Oyeyemi v Commissioner for Local Government, Kwara State & Ors, Nnaemeka-Agu JSC declared that “Courts have a duty to protect vested rights, as otherwise lawlessness will reign. So, they have always taken the view that any attempt by a competent authority to take away a citizen’s vested rights must be done in strict compliance with the law and any laid down procedure therefore.” See also Ojo v Governor of Oyo State; See also Wilson v Attorney-General of Bendel State, Mayor etc of Westminster v London & North Western Railway Coy., Hart v Military Governor of Rivers State & Ors.

The term “public interest” serves as a guiding principle for government action, legal decisions, and policy-making, and emphasizes the “common good.” It is often described as the “common good” (bonum commune), referring to matters that affect the community’s functioning. This is consistent with the purposive rule of interpretation and is handy when the courts must also defend the rule of law, insist on separation of powers, and are determined to protect fundamental rights and encourage democratic accountability.

The Supreme Court used the concept of “Public Interest” in the judgment being discussed to secure democratic values and preserve fundamental rights of not just the Respondent thereat but those of the generality of Nigerians. This is a commendable judicial stride which brings to the fore the essence of purposive rule of interpretation. This approach ought to be applied generally particularly in strengthening Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence which has received uncountable battering because of some ungraceful decisions Nigerians insist did not protect public interest.

It is necessary to examine the concept of “public interest” and the notion of “purposive rule of interpretation” that have been referred to above. The United States Constitution went into effect in March 1789 and has only been amended 27 times. Their Judiciary’s approach to interpretation insists that the Constitution must evolve with society, with interpretations reflecting changing values, unlike a static text frozen in time.

Their Constitution uses general language (e.g. “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “due process”) and these require judges to interpret their meanings for new situations, like digital privacy or internet speech, etc. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review ensures these evolving interpretations remain supreme, applying enduring principles like free speech to contemporary challenges like online expression, demonstrating the Constitution’s dynamic nature as interpreted by courts. This is purposive rule of interpretation which by its application would make frequent amendments, absolutely unnecessary.

On Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment’s free speech clause has been interpreted to protect symbolic speech (like flag burning) and online communication, adapting to new forms of expression. The “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was used in Brown v Board of Education to overturn segregation, applying the principle of equality to racial discrimination, demonstrating how fundamental rights gain modern relevance. The concept of a right to privacy, not explicitly in the text, emerged from interpretations of various amendments, as seen in cases like Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade showing evolving application of rights. In essence, judicial interpretation is the primary mechanism that transforms the U.S. Constitution from a historical document into a “living” framework and transformative document that guides contemporary legal and social issues.

The Electoral Count Act, 1887 which still governs presidential elections in the U.S. has only been amended a few times. The purposive rule of interpretation shields the system from political manipulations that plunge a country into controversies, incivilities, instabilities, crudities and governance rascality that characterise politics and governance in Nigeria presently.

The American model is worthy of emulation for countries that want to deepen their democratic practices and civilised values that are foundational to economic development and national greatness. Purposive approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation stabilizes democracy, smoothens refined values, legitimizes the electoral processes and constitutes a critical signpost for attracting foreign direct investment without which economic development will be structurally impaired.

Nigerian Judiciary’s approach to purposive rule is sporadic, ungainly and seems not to be governed by the doctrine of judicial precedent. The consequence is devastating. This accounts for very low public perception of the courts described to be deep-seated distrust, concerns over corruption, and perceived political influence.

A 2021 survey indicated 71 per cent of Nigerians do not trust the judiciary, viewing it as slow, politically manipulated, and inaccessible, despite its vital role as the constitutional guardian.

This is understandable. A few examples show how the interpretation of the Constitution and electoral statutes have diminished democracy, destroyed public image of the judiciary, weakened Nigeria’s electoral culture and has significantly made Nigeria the fifth worst governed country in the world.

Olehi is an Owerri-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).