By Vera Samuel  Anyagafu

IT is apposite that even in the deportation of an alien the appropriate authority cannot act arbitrarily but must follow due process, which often involves ministerial, administrative or judicial Deportation Order, open for the affected alien to challenge in court.

It is thus clear that if the manner of the “deportation” carried out by the Lagos State Government were even an act of the Federal Government, involving non-Nigerians, it would remain unlawful by reason of its arbitrariness, non-conformance with due process and lack of decency.

No legal authority to deport

It is important to redirect the argument about what the Lagos State Government did and not to posit it within the context of deportation. Also, it is important to re-enforce the case that no state government has the legal authority to deport even an alien from the country and I believe the case here has raised enough dust to require the intervention of the Attorney General of the Federation.

He needs to restate the law and bring it home to other Governors threatening reprisal actions that deportation belongs exclusively to the Federal Government and that no Nigerian can be a subject of deportation in Nigeria.

Limit to powers of deportation

The case of the Federal Minister of Internal Affairs and Others VS Shugaba Abdulrrahaman Darman 1(982) 3NCLLR915 helped to shed light over the limits of even the powers of the Federal Government in deportation matters and to establish that a Nigerian citizen domiciled in Nigeria cannot possibly be deported from Nigeria. Shugaba Abdurrahaman Darman was a Member of the Great Nigeria Peoples Party [GNPP] and the Majority Leader in the Borno State House of Assembly.

The National Party of Nigeria (NPN) controlled governance at the Federal level, and in purported exercise of powers under the Immigration Act, 1963, the then Federal Minister for Internal Affairs (Bello Maitama Yusuf) issued an Order, published in an Extra-ordinary Federal Government Gazette classifying Shugaba Darman as a “Prohibited Immigrant” where-upon, Shugaba Darman was deported from Nigeria.

He went to court and sought several reliefs including a declaration that he is a citizen of Nigeria and as such has a fundamental right of immunity from expulsion from Nigeria. Having ruled in his favour, the court made a declaration that the ‘Deportation Order’ was ultra vires and void and that same constituted a violation of his fundamental rights, personal liberty, privacy and freedom of movement in Nigeria.

In the case herein, the power of the Federal Government over deportation is defined and circumscribed by law, therefore, cannot be invoked against Nigerians and is open to judicial challenge.

The State Government by the law is constitutionally barred from matters pertaining to deportation and it will be an arrogation of non-existent powers for state governments to claim that they can deport ‘non-indigence’ to their ‘state of origin’, because attempting such would be illegal and unconstitutional and would epitomize a level of executive recklessness worse than the case in Shugaba’s Saga.

Seeking responsive government intervention

Under Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is stated that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association and enjoins the government to encourage free mobility of people, goods and services throughout the Federation.

Section 16 enjoins government to provide adequate shelter, unemployment and sick benefits, welfare of the disabled and to manage the economy as best as possible to serve the common good. The Constitution does not envisage that any Nigerian would become a destitute. Destitution is a direct result of failure of government and this malaise can only be cured through responsive and responsible government intervention.