In modern Nigerian jurisprudence, access to justice is not merely a theoretical right but a constitutional imperative. Yet this right has long been shaped and constrained by the doctrine of locus standi which is the legal capacity of a person to institute proceedings in a court of law. Traditionally, Nigerian courts maintained a narrow definition of locus standi, requiring a litigant to demonstrate that his or her civil rights or obligations have been, or are likely to be, directly affected by a challenged act or law before the court will exercise its jurisdiction.[1] This restrictive approach posed significant hurdles for public interest litigation (PIL), actions instituted for the benefit of the public at large rather than the vindication of purely personal rights.
However, evolving judicial attitudes, reinforced in constitutional human rights cases and procedural rules, have sought to liberalise the doctrine to enable greater participation by concerned citizens, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other public-spirited litigants. This article examines the legal effect of locus standi in Nigeria, traces its doctrinal evolution, and assesses its current application in public interest litigation. This article seeks to clarify the foundational principles of locus standi, analyse leading statutory and judicial authorities in Nigeria, and evaluate whether and how standi rules have adapted to accommodate public interest litigation.
The Doctrine of Locus Standi: Concept and Origins
Meaning and Purpose of Locus Standi
Locus standi, derived from Latin meaning “place of standing”, refers to a plaintiff’s legal right or capacity to institute an action in court.[2] The doctrine serves two primary purposes: to protect courts from frivolous, hypothetical or abstract claims by individuals with no tangible interest. It also ensures that only those with genuine legal grievances can invoke judicial power.[3] Without locus standi, a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, and the suit will be struck out.[4]
Locus Standi Under the Constitution
Nigeria’s Constitution vests judicial power in the courts to determine “justiciable issues relating to the civil rights andobligations of persons.”[5] In Senator Abraham Ade Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor (Adesanya’s case), the Supreme Court defined locus standi as the legal capacity to institute proceedings.
The court emphasises that a claimant must show that his civil rights and obligations are directly affected by the challenged act.[6] This authoritative position anchored locus standi within the constitutional framework, linking standing to personal legal interests rather than generalised grievances.
Traditional Application and Restrictive Approach
Adesanya’s Case: Standing Must Be Personal
In Adesanya’s case, the appellant, a Senator, challenged the appointment of the Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission. The Supreme Court held that Adesanya lacked locus standi because he could not establish that his own civil rights or obligations were specifically affected by the appointment, especially having participated in the Senate to debate the same appointment.[7] The Court reinforced that mere public spiritedness such as acting as a “watchdog” does not alone confer a right to institute litigation.[8]
This restrictive “special injury or sufficient interest” test was applied consistently in subsequent cases, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate more than abstract or collective injury to secure standing.[9]
General Restrictive Consequences
Under the traditional approach, ordinary citizens, NGOs, and other non-governmental litigants were often denied locus standi in cases of public wrongdoing, even where the public interest was high including environmental degradation, governance abuses, and legislative overreach simply because they could not show direct injury over and above that suffered by the general public.[10] This situation led to criticism that the doctrine undermined access to justice and shielded public affairs from judicial scrutiny.
Public Interest Litigation and Locus Standi
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009
A major procedural development affecting locus standi in public interest litigation arose with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. These Rules were enacted to address the difficulty of enforcing fundamental rights due to restrictive standi requirements under general law.[11] Paragraph 3(e) of the Preamble specifically emphasises the need to encourage public interest litigation to promote the human rights of citizens.[12] Legal scholarship suggests that in so far as fundamental rights enforcement is concerned, the 2009 Rules removed the strict locus standi requirement, enabling NGOs and concerned individuals to sue on behalf of others without needing to show direct personal injury when fundamental rights are at stake.[13]
However, absence of a direct Supreme Court pronouncement strictly interpreting this provision means courts vary in application. But practitioners and commentators note that in enforcement of fundamental rights under the Rules, traditional locus standi requirements do not strictly apply, thus facilitating PIL in human rights contexts.[14]
Judicial Trends Towards Liberalisation
Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
One of the most noteworthy modern cases signalling a shift towards liberal application of locus standi in public interest litigation is Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch). In this environmental protection case, the Supreme Court adopted a more functional and public interest-oriented approach to locus standi. This allows public-spirited litigants to challenge acts affecting the environment even where direct personal injury was not strictly established.[15] The decision was widely seen as expanding the frontiers of standing for public interest cases particularly in environmental justice. Although scholars note that the case still requires litigants to demonstrate some nexus to the issue rather than mere busy-body litigation.[16]
This trend reflects an incremental departure from the rigid requirements in Adesanya’s case, allowing public interest litigation to flourish where fundamental or environmental rights are implicated, and where courts recognise broader societal interests.
Representative and Group Litigation
Adedeji & Ors v. CBN & Anor
In Adedeji & Ors v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor, the Supreme Court clarified that representative suits filed on behalf of groups with common interests ensure that judgments benefit all members of that group, reinforcing that public interest litigation can be effective when proper representative capacity is established.[17] This case further supports standing not strictly limited to unique personal injury, provided the claimant represents a class or group with a shared interest.
The Continuing Restrictive Line: Edun v. Governor of Delta State
Despite liberalising tendencies, the traditional locus standi doctrine still persists in some decisions. In Edun v. Governor of Delta State & Ors, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the validity of certain state laws. This was because he failed to show a special interest beyond that of every resident of Delta State.[18] This underscores that until the Supreme Court definitively overruns or refines Adesanya’s case across all public interest matters, lower courts may continue to apply the stricter traditional test in some contexts.
Statutory and Procedural Considerations
Section 46 of the Constitution
Section 46(1) of the Constitution provides for enforcement of fundamental rights, empowering individuals to apply to the court if any of their rights under Chapter IV is contravened.[19] Constitutional jurisprudence increasingly situates locus standi within the context of enforcement of fundamental rights, providing a pathway for PIL in human rights cases even without intense personal injury, especially under the 2009 Rules.[20]
Conclusion
Locus standi in public interest litigation in Nigeria has evolved from a strict, personal injury-based doctrine to a more flexible, context-sensitive approach especially in environmental and human rights cases. Traditional cases such as Adesanya’s case established the restrictive test that a plaintiff must show direct injury or a sufficient special interest. However, recent decisions like Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC and procedural rules such as the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 have expanded the scope of standing for public interest litigants.
Which has enabled NGOs and concerned citizens to challenge public wrongs that impact broader sections of society. Nevertheless, tensions remain between strict and liberal applications of locus standi. Some decisions, like Edun v. Governor of Delta State, indicate lower courts may still apply the older restrictive tests. Continued judicial evolution, statutory clarification, or legislative reform may be necessary to fully harmonize locus standi with the needs of effective public interest litigation in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.
[1] Locus standi is a threshold issue requiring a plaintiff to establish sufficient interest and personal injury before a court can assume jurisdiction.
[2] The term locus standi denotes legal capacity or standing to sue in court.
[3] Locus standi prevents courts from being used by meddlesome or disinterested litigants.
[4] If a plaintiff lacks locus standi, a court lacks jurisdiction and must strike out the suit.
[5] Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution empowers courts to adjudicate issues of civil rights and obligations.
[6] Senator Abraham Ade Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor (1981) 2 N.C.L.R. 358 (SC) held that locus standi requires personal legal interest.
[7] Ibid.
[8] The decision emphasised that participating in legislative debate does not automatically confer standing to sue.
[9] Traditional locus standi doctrine has been criticised for limiting access to justice in public law matters.
[10] The rule historically hindered public interest litigation where no individual could show special injury.
[11] The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 encourage public interest litigation.
[12] Preamble of the 2009 Rules emphasises promotion of human rights through access to court.
[13] Scholars argue that the 2009 Rules effectively expand standing in human rights enforcement.
[14] Application varies, but many courts now adopt less restrictive standi tests in rights enforcement.
[15] Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1666) 518
greatly expanded locus standi in environmental PIL.
[16] The decision signalled a departure from strict personal injury tests in PIL contexts.
[17] Adedeji & Ors v. CBN & Anor (2022) LLJR-SC affirmed that representative suits benefit all members of a represented class.
[18] Edun v. Governor of Delta State & Ors (2022) LLJR-SC applied a restrictive locus standi requirement in a PIL context.
[19] Section 46 Constitution allows enforcement of fundamental rights.
[20] The evolution of Public Interest Litigation in locus standi remains a dynamic area of Nigerian law.
Lead Partner, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES
BESSIE OBORT OFUKA
Graduate Trainee, EKO SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES