CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT: A FRESH LOOK AT THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY

Abstract

In May, 1999, Nigeria commenced a journey in constitutional governance, founded on the rule of law. Some of the important, universally validated elements of the system are an independent judiciary; and the right of all persons to approach the courts to ventilate their grievance. However, when a grievance is provoked by an act or omission of the government or a government agency, such a person is confronted with the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) which mandates that the action must be commenced within a specific period. Obviously, the onerous task of governance demands some level of protection for government officers in the course of performance of public duty. However, POPA does not provide that actions commenced against public bodies or officers should be brought within a reasonable time. Rather, it requires such actions to be brought within the shortest possible time; namely, within three months. Using doctrinal/analytical methodology, this paper argues that POPA is unconstitutional, as it constitutes an unreasonable and disproportionate interference with the right of access to court; a right of fundamental constitutional importance.