Doctrine of Covering the Field in Nigerian Constitutional Law: Explained with Key Cases

Among the various constitutional doctrines applied across countries with written constitutions, the Doctrine of Covering the Field stands out as one of the most widely recognized, especially in federal systems of government.In this article under LAW-MADE-SIMPLE, we break down this doctrine in the simplest and clearest way possible, so that even a beginner in law can grasp it and never forget it.

What Is the Doctrine of Covering the Field?

The doctrine essentially means that: Where both the Federal and State Governments legislate on the same subject matter under the Concurrent Legislative List, and there is a conflict between both laws, the federal law shall prevail, and the state law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency.

This doctrine is embedded in Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended):

“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

Doctrine of Necessity: Meaning, Key Cases, and Application in Constitutional Law

Practical Illustration

Consider this example:If the National Assembly enacts a law regulating the issuance of university certificates across Nigeria, and a State House of Assembly also makes a law on the same subject for its universities, both laws may exist side-by-side only if there’s no conflict.However, if the federal law was intended to be exhaustive and fully regulate that area, and the state law introduces a conflicting standard, the state law becomes invalid.This is because the federal law has “covered the field.”

Judicial Support for the Doctrine:

Although this doctrine is statutorily recognised in Nigeria Constitutional provisions. Several landmark Supreme Court decisions have established and reinforced this doctrine. Here are three important cases:

A.G. Ogun State v. Aberuagba (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395

In this case, the Ogun State Government enacted a law on the advertisement and sale of goods. However, the Federal Government had already legislated on the same matter through the Price Control Act. The Supreme Court held that the federal law was intended to be exhaustive and had covered the field. Therefore, the Ogun State law was void to the extent of its inconsistency.

This case centered on the collection of VAT (Value Added Tax) in Lagos State. The state had its own sales tax law, but the Federal Government had already passed a VAT Act covering the same area.The courts ruled that the federal VAT law prevailed. The Lagos State law was therefore invalid as the field had already been legislated upon federally.

This is a foundational authority on the subject. The Supreme Court clarified that where both the National Assembly and a State Assembly make laws on the same matter (especially under the Concurrent List), and the federal law is valid and comprehensive, the state law becomes void if it conflicts.

Fatayi-Williams, JSC as then was, stated;

“If both federal and state laws exist on the same issue, the state law must give way if the federal law has fully covered the area.”

Kayode Eso, JSC, provided a concise definition as follows:

“Covering the field” simply means once the federal law legislates fully on a matter, any conflicting state law is of no effect.”

For the doctrine of covering the field to be relevant in any legal system, the following conditions must be in place:

• A written supreme constitution
• A federal system of government

Legislative bodies at both state and federal levels (i.e., State Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly)

The Doctrine of Covering the Field is a crucial constitutional principle that ensures legal harmony in federal systems like Nigeria’s. It underscores the supremacy of federal law in concurrent matters and plays a vital role in resolving legislative conflicts.

If you found this insightful, feel free to share with your peers and colleagues. Follow our platform for more simplified legal content under the King’s Advocate Network(Law-made-simple).

https://youtube.com/@kingsley-o3p?si=9NfeX7uudGB9IQnk

Doctrine of Necessity: Meaning, Key Cases, and Application in Constitutional Law

Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962)(Full summary)

hFacts Summary <div><div> of Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961)1 ALL NLR 400