Imagine a country where government officials believe your freedom depends entirely on their permission.
A place where authorities can decide when you may speak, protest, move freely, or even demand justice.
Now imagine the Supreme Court stepping in and declaring:
“No. Your rights existed before the government itself.”
That is essentially the powerful message delivered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a remarkable lead judgment by Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JSC in the case of NDPHC LTD VS. MICHAEL.
And the implications are enormous.
The Question at the Heart of Democracy
What exactly are fundamental rights?
Are they privileges granted by politicians?
Can governments suspend them whenever convenient?
Or are they something deeper, something every human being possesses simply because they are human?
The Supreme Court answered clearly.
According to the Court, fundamental rights are not government favours. They are “basic moral guarantees” belonging to all human beings regardless of race, tribe, religion, status, or nationality.
In other words, you do not become entitled to dignity because the government permits it. You possess dignity because you are human.
The Ghost of an Old Principle Returns
To explain this, the Court revisited one of Nigeria’s most famous constitutional cases — Ransome-Kuti v Attorney General of the Federation.
In that legendary decision, Kayode Eso, JSC made a statement that has echoed through Nigerian constitutional law for decades:
“A fundamental right stands above the ordinary laws of the land.”
That sentence may sound simple, but it carries revolutionary consequences.
It means that even when government agencies hide behind laws, procedures, directives, or executive powers, they cannot casually crush constitutional freedoms.
Why?
Because human rights are superior to ordinary governmental convenience.
Before There Was Government, There Were Rights
Then came perhaps the most philosophical part of the judgment.
The Supreme Court stated that fundamental rights are “antecedent to political society itself.”
Put differently: Before presidents. Before governors. Before police forces. Before parliaments. Before constitutions, human beings already possessed certain rights.
The Constitution did not create those rights. It merely recognized them. This position strikes at the very heart of constitutional democracy.
Government is not master over citizens, but servant to citizens. And once authorities forget this principle, the courts have a duty to intervene.
Why This Matters to Everyday Nigerians
This was not just abstract legal theory.
The judgment arrives in a country where citizens frequently complain about:
- unlawful arrests,
- prolonged detention,
- abuse of power,
- intimidation of journalists,
- suppression of dissent, and
- disregard for civil liberties.
The Supreme Court’s message was unmistakable:
A democratic society cannot call itself civilized while trampling on human dignity.
The Court emphasized that human rights are not optional. They are mandatory.
Not political. Not discretionary. Not seasonal.
Mandatory.
The Supreme Court Draws a Constitutional Line
The Court also relied on the case of Igwe v Ezeanochie and Hassan v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to reinforce another critical point:
Human rights exist even when governments fail to respect them.
That is what makes them rights.
And that is why courts exist to restrain power when power becomes excessive.
The Bigger Warning Hidden Inside the Judgment
Beyond legal philosophy, the judgment carries a subtle warning to governments everywhere.
No administration lasts forever. No political office is permanent. No authority is absolute.
But the dignity of the human person remains central to constitutional order.
The Supreme Court was effectively reminding every public authority that democracy is not measured merely by elections or political slogans.
It is measured by how the weak, the unpopular, the accused, and the ordinary citizen are treated.
The Final Message
At its core, the judgment delivers one timeless truth:
The State exists for the citizen — not the citizen for the State.
And in reaffirming that principle, the Supreme Court did more than interpret the law.
It defended the very idea of freedom itself.