Legal Gridlock and the Doctrine of Necessity the Nigeria Situation in Perspective

Abstract

The doctrine of necessity is not alien to Nigeria. Its invocation was not first witnessed in the events of Tuesday 9^th February, 2010 which saw the senate passed a resolution making the Vice President Good luck Jonathan Acting President and Commander–in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The action indeed provoked mixed reactions from both legal and political spheres as to its constitutionality. The failure of the then President, Musa Yar’Adua to transmit a letter to the National Assembly informing the National Assembly that he was otherwise unable to discharge the functions of the office in which case and until he transmits to the National Assembly a declaration to the contrary, the functions of the president would be discharged by the vice president as Acting President. This is the express provision of Section 145 of the 1999 constitution. This evoked National legal and political analysis as to whether or not the President is under a legal duty to transmit such a letter to the National Assembly. And whether or not a radio broadcast would amount to such transmission to the National Assembly. And in the face of the legal grid lock, whether the senate was right in invoking the doctrine of necessity. Therefore, this paper will critically consider the concept of legal gridlock and the subsequent invocation of the doctrine of necessity. A cursory overview of the implications of invoking the doctrine and explicate the lesson learnt.