^{page 40 note 2} Holden, “Race for leadership of Africa,” Manchester Guardian Weekly, November 23rd, 1961, p. 5, Cols. 1–4. Cole, “The independence constitution of federal Nigeria,” (1961), 50 The South Atlantic Quarterly 1.

^{page 40 note 3} Cole, supra, note 2 at p. 4. For a thorough discussion of Nigerian constitutional development, see Odumosu, The Nigerian constitution: history and development, 1963, pp. 3–139. The Republican Constitution superseded the independence Constitution of October 1st, 1960, which marked Nigeria’s transformation from a monarchy to a republic.

^{page 40 note 4} Cole, op. cit., at p. 4: Ezera, Constitutional developments in Nigeria, 1960, p. 248, also see Odumosu, op. cit, at pp. 227–256.

^{page 41 note 1} Ezera, op. at., at p. 244.

^{page 41 note 2} Section 3 provides for the Regions of Northern, Eastern, Western and Mid-Western Nigeria and the Federal territory of Lagos.

^{page 41 note 3} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 4. Special provisions are contained in s. 4 for adding new Regions or altering the boundaries of territories. The approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament is required and the approval of a majority of both Houses of the legislatures of at least two Regions, and in any cases of all Regions affected by the territorial changes. Transfers of areas of less than 1,000 square miles and 100,000 inhabitants are excepted.

^{page 41 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 5.

^{page 41 note 5} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 86.

^{page 41 note 6} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 121 (1).

^{page 41 note 7} Cole, op. cit., at p. 10.

^{page 42 note 1} The Exclusive Legislative List includes categories such as currency, customs, defence, deportation, external affairs, immigration, incorporation, maritime shipping, marriage, military forces, railways, trunk roads. For an example of the courts exercising the power of judicial review over the extent of the legislative power as granted under the Exclusive List see Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa v Doherty and Others, [1963] J.A.L. 193.

^{page 42 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 69 (4).

^{page 43 note 1} Houston v. Moore (1820), 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 1, at p. 22.

^{page 43 note 2} Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1.

^{page 43 note 3} Cole, ante, at p. 11. Also see s. 69 (3).

^{page 44 note 1} The Exclusive Legislative List, Item 45; the Concurrent Legislative List, Item 29.

^{page 44 note 2} U.S. Constitution, art. I, s. 8.

^{page 44 note 3} McCulloch v. State of Maryland, et al. (1819), 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 315, at pp. 404—420.

^{page 44 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 74.

^{page 44 note 5} Matter of Weekly Rest Act, [1937] A.C. 326; (1937), 1 D.L.R. 673.

^{page 44 note 6} Missouri v. Holland (1920), 252 U.S. 416.

^{page 45 note 1} McDougal & Associates, Studies in world public order, 1960, 378.

^{page 45 note 2} (1919), Harv. L. Rev., 281, at p. 287, quoted in McDougal, op. cit. supra, at p. 382.

^{page 45 note 3} State of Missouri v. Holland, United States Game Warden, 252 (1920), U.S. 416, at p. 433, quoted in McDougal, op. cit., supra, at p. 382.

^{page 45 note 4} Ezera, op. cit. supra, at p. 244.

^{page 45 note 5} The Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 41.

^{page 45 note 6} The Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 38.

^{page 45 note 7} Although some constituencies may be larger or smaller than others “in order to take into account of means of communication, geographical features, the distribution of different communities and the boundaries of territories”: The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 51.

^{page 45 note 8} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 42 (1) (a); see Odumosu op.cit., at p. 237.

^{page 46 note 1} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 62 (2). U.S. Const., art. I, s. 6 (2).

^{page 46 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 62 (3).

^{page 46 note 3} U.S. Constitution, art. I, s. 7 (2).

^{page 46 note 4} Cole, op. cit., supra, at p. 6.

^{page 46 note 5} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 64.

^{page 46 note 6} Wade & Phillips, Constitutional law, 4th edn. 1952, at p. 143.

^{page 46 note 7} However, a grace period is provided in order to allow a person who is not a Senator or House Member at the time of his appointment to become one.

^{page 46 note 8} U.S. Constitution, art. I, s. 6 (2).

^{page 47 note 1} 5.83 Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, 1900, 98, 99. Although the Nigerian Constitution provides the basis for subordination of the executive, in actual practice Parliament has not asserted its full potential influence. See Mackintosh, “The Nigerian Federal Parliament,” (1963), Public Law 333.

^{page 47 note 2} Bagehot, The English constitution, Introduction to 1928 edn.

^{page 47 note 3} U.S. Constitution, art. I, s. I; art. II, s. I; art. III, s. 1.

^{page 47 note 4} (1935). 293 U.S. 388.

^{page 47 note 5} (1935). 295 U.S. 495.

^{page 48 note 1} U.S. v. Rock Royal Co-Op. Inc. (1939), 307 U.S. 533; Yakus v. U.S. (1944), 321 U.S. 414; Fahey v. Malonee (1947), 332 U.S. 245; Carlson v. London (1952), 342 U.S. 524.

^{page 48 note 2} Jaffe & Nathanson, Administrative law, 1961, 90–91; Davis, Administrative law text (1959). 31.

^{page 48 note 3} Corwin, Total war and the constitution, 1947, 49.

^{page 48 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ss. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81.

^{page 49 note 1} Barron v. Baltimore (1833), 7 Peters 243, held that the general provisions of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, applied only to the federal government.

^{page 49 note 2} See note 3, infra.

^{page 49 note 3} It must be noted, however, that all of the limitations that have been imposed on the federal government have not been transmitted through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states. The following procedural safeguards have been held not to apply to the states: indictment by grand jury, Hurtado v. California (1884), 110 U.S. 516; prohibition against double jeopardy, Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 302 U.S. 319; right to trial by jury, Maxwell v. Dow (1900), 176 U.S. 581; the right against self-incrimination, Twining v. New Jersey (1908), 211 U.S. 78; Adamson v. California (1947), 332 U.S. 46; Cohen v. Hurley (1961), 366 U.S. 117.

However, the substantive First Amendment freedoms have been held to be included in the protective embrace of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby applicable to the states as well as the federal government as follows: freedom of speech, Gitlow v. New York (1925), 268 U.S. 652; freedom of the press, Near v. Minnesota (1931), 283 U.S. 697; freedom of assembly, Defonge v. Oregon (1937), 299 U.S. 353; freedom of religion, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), 310 U.S. 296; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624.

It is well settled that the substantive freedoms of the First Amendment are applicable to the states, but the debate concerning whether or not the procedural inhibitions apply to the states is a continuing one, see Hutcheson v. U.S. (1962), 369 U.S. 641–42, and Freund, The Supreme Court of the United States, (Meridian edn. 1961), 44–50; recently the Supreme Court has enlarged the definition of “freedom” in the Fourteenth Amendment by adding freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of the Fourth Amendment: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, and the right to counsel in all types of cases, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335.

^{page 49 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 32.

^{page 50 note 1} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ss. 24 (4), 25 (2); see Holland, “Human rights in Nigeria,” Current Legal Problems (1962), 145.

^{page 50 note 2} See Reynolds v. U.S. (1818), 98 U.S. 145.

^{page 50 note 3} See Prince v. Massachusetts (1943), 321 U.S. 158; Nebbia v. New York (1934), 291 U.S. 502; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Reality Co. (1926), 272 U.S. 365; Roth v. U.S., Alberts v. California (1957), 354 U.S. 476.

^{page 50 note 4} Thomas v. Collins (1945), 323 U.S. 516, 529.

^{page 50 note 5} West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, 639.

^{page 50 note 6} Wolf v. Colorado (1949), 338 U.S. 25.

^{page 50 note 7} Frank v. Maryland (1959), 359 U.S. 360.

^{page 51 note 1} West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624.

^{page 51 note 2} For examples of the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with this issue, see Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), 98 U.S. 145, and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939), 310 U.S. 296, 303.

^{page 51 note 3} For an American example, see Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943), 314 U.S. 105.

^{page 51 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 24 (4).

^{page 51 note 5} McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), 333 U.S. 203.

^{page 51 note 6} Ibid.; in s. 24 (2) there is another good example of the Nigerian Constitution going into greater detail than its American counterpart and thereby attempting to meet some of the church-state problems that the United States Supreme Court has had to face. It explicitly states: “No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observances if such instruction, ceremony or observances relate to a religion other than his own.” The United States Supreme Court through a caseby-case process has arrived at a similar position. For recent examples of the United States Court dealing with this problem, see School District of Abbington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett (1963), 373 U.S. 901; Zorach V. Clauson (1952), 343 U.S. 306; Engel v. Vitale (1962), 370 U.S. 421.

^{page 51 note 7} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 25.

^{page 52 note 1} Boiling v. Sharpe (1954), 347 U.S. 497.

^{page 52 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 28.

^{page 52 note 3} See note 3, p. 49, ante.

^{page 53 note 1} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 22.

^{page 53 note 2} Cammeyer v. Newton (1876), 94 U.S. 225.

^{page 53 note 3} Chicago B&O RR. Co. v. Chicago (1897), 166 U.S. 226.

^{page 53 note 4} See amendment procedures, p. 58, post.

^{page 53 note 5} For a discussion of some of the dangers of referring to such precedents, see Grove, “The ‘sentinels’ of liberty? the Nigerian judiciary and fundamental rights” [1963] J.A.L. 152.

^{page 53 note 6} For examples of the courts interpreting the phrase “reasonably justifiable in democratic society”, see D.P.P. v. Obi, [1961] 1 All N.L.R. 182 (Federal Supreme Court);Cheranci v. Cheranci, [1960] N.R.N.L.R. 24 (High Court, Northern Region); Williams v. Mejekodunmi, [1962] F.S.C. 166/1962 (Federal Supreme Court); v. Governor, Northern Region, [1961] 1 All N.L.R. 371; [1961] N.R.N.L.R. 65 (High Court, Northern Region.)

^{page 54 note 1} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 29 provides that “nothing in this section shall authorize any derogation from the provisions of s. 18 of this Constitution except in respect of deaths resulting from acts of war.” Section 18 deals with deprivation of life.

^{page 54 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 70; for a discussion of the Western Nigeria crisis which resulted in a declaration of a state of emergency, see Odumosu, op. cit., ante, at p. 276.

^{page 54 note 3} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 111.

^{page 55 note 1} The Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, s. 120.

^{page 55 note 2} U.S. Constitution, art. III, s. 2.

^{page 55 note 3} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 113; justices of the High Courts are similarly protected; see The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 124; Constitution of Northern Nigeria, s. 52; Constitution of Western Nigeria, s. 52; Constitution of Eastern Nigeria, s. 52.

^{page 55 note 4} The Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, s. 106.

^{page 55 note 5} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 113 (1).

^{page 55 note 6} U.S. Constitution, art. III, s. I.

^{page 55 note 7} Ibid., art. I, s. 3 (6).

^{page 55 note 8} Ibid., art. III, s. 1.

^{page 56 note 1} (1868), 506 U.S. (7 Wall).

^{page 56 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 118.

^{page 56 note 3} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ss. 111, 115. Illustrative of the Supreme Court’s interpreting a Regional Constitution is the case of Akintola v. Aderemi & Adegbenro, The Guardian, July 9th, 1962, p. 9, Col. 12; reversed Privy Council, Adegbenro v. Akintola, [1963] 3 All E.R. 544; [1963] J.A.L.99; Ogwurike, “The Governor’s powers to remove a premier from office in Western Nigeria”, [1963] J.A.L. 95.

^{page 56 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 117.

^{page 57 note 1} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 114. Parliament may not confer original criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Supreme Court.

^{page 57 note 2} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 114.

^{page 57 note 3} U.S. Constitution, art. III, s. 2 (2).

^{page 57 note 4} Ibid., art. III, s. 2 (1).

^{page 57 note 5} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 117 (4) (c).

^{page 57 note 6} Ibid., s. 117 (4) (c).

^{page 58 note 1} Muskrat v. U.S. (1911), 219 U.S. 346, 356.

^{page 58 note 2} Chicago Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman (1892), 143 U.S. 345.

^{page 58 note 3} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 115 (1).

^{page 58 note 4} The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, s. 117.

^{page 58 note 5} See p. 41, n. 4 ante.

^{page 58 note 6} U.S. Constitution, art. V; alternatively, amendments may be initiated “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states” whereupon a convention is called for proposing amendments which must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

^{page 59 note 1} Wheare, Federalism Mature and Emergent, 1955, 31.

^{page 59 note 2} Apter, The Gold Coast in Transition, 1955, 3.

^{page 59 note 3} Ezera, Constitutional Developments in Nigeria, 1961, 261.