Supreme Court: AGF’s Consent Requirement For Enforcing Judgments Against Government Violates Constitution

*Strikes Down Section 84 Of Sheriffs And Civil Process Act, Declares It Unconstitutional

In a judgment delivered on January 24, 2025, with suit number SC/CV/268/2021, the Supreme Court of Nigeria declared Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA) unconstitutional, striking it down from the nation’s statute books. The Court held that the provision, which requires the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) or State Attorney-General (AG) to enforce judgments against government agencies, is inconsistent with Sections 1, 3, 6, and 287 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The judgment, delivered by Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, in the case of Inspector General of Police v. Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN (SC/CV/268/2023), marks a significant shift in the enforcement of judgments against government entities. The Court ruled that Section 84 of the SCPA, which mandates that a judgment creditor must obtain the consent of the AGF or AG before enforcing a judgment against government funds, is in direct conflict with the Constitution and undermines the independence of the judiciary.

The case arose from garnishee proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent, Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN, to enforce a judgment debt of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) against the 2nd to 4th Respondents (the Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police FCT, and the Intelligence Response Team of the Nigerian Police Force). The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), as the garnishee, had argued that it did not maintain accounts in the names of the judgment debtors and that the garnishee proceedings were invalid without the consent of the AGF, as required by Section 84 of the SCPA.

The trial court had granted a garnishee order absolute, but the Court of Appeal, while agreeing that the trial court erred in dismissing the CBN’s affidavit to show cause, upheld the garnishee order. Dissatisfied, the CBN appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues about the constitutionality of Section 84 of the SCPA and the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the garnishee proceedings without the AGF’s consent.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 84 of the SCPA, which requires the consent of the AGF or AG to enforce judgments against government agencies, is inconsistent with the Constitution. Justice Ogunwumiju, in her lead judgment, stated:

“Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is in conflict with Sections 1, 3, 6, and 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), and I hereby strike it down from our statute books.”

The Court emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. The Court further held that the requirement for the AGF’s consent undermines the judiciary’s independence and the rule of law, as it subjects the enforcement of court judgments to the discretion of the executive arm of government.

Justice Ogunwumiju noted that the Constitution envisages that once a court has lawfully given a judgment, the consequences of the litigation can no longer be moderated by the executive through the AGF or AG. She stated:

“Section 287 of the Constitution envisages that once the dispute has been submitted to the courts and the parties have had their day in court, and a judgment has been lawfully given, after that point, the judgment having the imprimatur of the judiciary, the consequences of the litigation can no longer be moderated by the executive through the AG or AGF.”

The Court also rejected the argument that Section 84 of the SCPA is a procedural condition precedent, holding that it gives the AGF unfettered discretion to deny access to justice, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for the enforcement of judgments against government agencies in Nigeria. It removes the requirement for the AGF’s consent, which had often been a significant obstacle for judgment creditors seeking to enforce court orders against government entities.

The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that court judgments are not subject to the whims and caprices of the executive arm of government.

It also aligns with the constitutional guarantee of access to justice and the enforcement of court decisions by all authorities and persons, as provided in Section 287 of the Constitution.