When the Constitution Speaks: Understanding the “Force of Law” and the Binding Power of Court Decisions in Nigeria. Volume I

By P.L. Osakwe

■ INTRODUCTION
In everyday discussions, people often hear the phrase: “the Constitution says this provision shall have the force of law.” But what does this mean in practice? Does it elevate the words of the Constitution above every other law? And more interestingly, does it mean that a judgment of the court, once delivered and not appealed against, stands on the same level as an Act of the National Assembly?
These questions go to the heart of constitutional supremacy, judicial authority, and the rule of law in Nigeria. Let us break it down.

1. What Does “Force of Law” Mean?

When the Constitution declares that something shall have the force of law, it means that such provision or instrument is legally binding and enforceable in the same manner as a valid law enacted by a competent legislature.
For instance:
Acts of the National Assembly: Laws validly passed by the federal legislature.
Subsidiary legislation: Regulations made under enabling statutes, if the statute says they shall have the force of law.
The Constitution itself: Being the supreme law of the land (Section 1(1)), its provisions override any inconsistent law.
So, “force of law” is essentially a constitutional stamp of authority, signaling that something is not merely advisory or aspirational, but carries legal consequences enforceable by courts.

2. Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution: The People’s Shield

Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides:

“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.
The decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Court of Appeal.

The decisions of the Federal High Court, a High Court and all other courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts of inferior jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, a High Court and such other courts, respectively.”
This provision means that every decision of the courts, unless overturned on appeal, has binding and enforceable legal authority throughout Nigeria.

3. Are Court Decisions Equivalent to Acts of the National Assembly?

This is where nuance is needed. On the surface, it may look like Section 287 equates a judgment to a statute, but legally, they operate differently.
Acts of the National Assembly: These are general rules of conduct that apply prospectively and to everyone within the jurisdiction. They create rights, duties, offences, and obligations binding on all.
Court Decisions (Judicial Precedents): These interpret laws and the Constitution, resolve disputes, and clarify rights. They are binding on the parties to the case (inter partes) and also serve as authoritative guides (ratio decidendi) for future similar cases under the doctrine of stare decisis.
So while both are binding, they are not the same thing. However:
An unappealed judgment becomes final and binding on the parties.
Under stare decisis, the principle of law laid down in that judgment becomes binding on lower courts and persuasive at higher levels.
In effect, such a decision becomes “law” in a functional sense, because it dictates how the law is to be applied in future cases.

4. Why the Constitution Equates Judicial Decisions with Enforceable Law.
The Constitution does this to protect the rule of law and prevent anarchy. If people could ignore court judgments simply because they were “not Acts of Parliament,” then judicial power would be meaningless. Section 6 of the Constitution vests judicial powers in the courts. Section 287 ensures those powers bite with enforceability.
This way, a judgment of the Supreme Court in Lagos binds the Governor of Zamfara, a Federal High Court order in Abuja binds the Police in Port Harcourt, and so on. It gives Nigeria a uniform system of justice.

5. The Real Difference: Law-Making vs Law-Declaring

The Legislature makes laws (Acts, regulations, etc.).
The Judiciary declares and interprets the law.
But when courts declare the law, their declaration is binding and enforceable like law itself. This is why Justice Oputa once famously said:

“We are final not because we are infallible; we are infallible only because we are final.”

This finality gives court decisions their law-like force.

6. Practical Implications

1. For Government Officials: They cannot pick and choose which court orders to obey. A subsisting order is as binding as an Act until set aside.
2. For Citizens: They can rely on judgments as enforceable rights, not mere opinions.
3. For Lawyers: An unchallenged judgment becomes a sword and shield in advocacy, just as powerful as statutory law.

7. Conclusion: The Harmony of Law and Justice.
So, does Section 287 mean a court decision is the same as an Act of the National Assembly? Not exactly. But it does mean that such a decision is law for all practical purposes, binding, enforceable, and unquestionable unless overturned on appeal.
The Constitution ensures a balance: Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret and apply it, and both are necessary for the rule of law to thrive. Without this balance, justice would become a dead letter, and the law a paper tiger.
As citizens, therefore, when we speak of the “force of law,” we must understand that it is not just about statutes passed in Abuja, it also includes the solemn words of judges pronounced from the Bench, echoing across the Federation, and binding everyone until duly set aside.