USER'S INSTRUCTIONS: The project work you are about to view is on ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' .Please, sit back and study the below research material carefully. This project topic ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' have complete 5(five) Chapters. The complete Project Material/writeup include: Abstract + Introduction + etc + Literature Review + methodology + etc + Conclusion + Recommendation + References/Bibliography.Our aim of providing this ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' project research material is to reduce the stress of moving from one school library to another all in the name of searching for ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' research materials. We are not encouraging any form of plagiarism. This service is legal because, all institutions permit their students to read previous projects, books, articles or papers while developing their own works.

---

TITLE PAGE

 

BY

---
--/H2013/01430
DEPARTMENT OF ----
SCHOOL OF ---
INSTITUTE OF ---

---

APPROVAL PAGE

This is to certify that the research work ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' by ---, Reg. No. --/H2007/01430 submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement award of a Higher National Diploma on --- has been approved.

By
---                                                     . ---
Supervisor                                                  Head of Department.
Signature……………….                           Signature……………….        

……………………………….
---
External Invigilator

---

DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to Almighty God for his protection, kindness, strength over my life throughout the period and also to my --- for his financial support and moral care towards me.Also to my mentor --- for her academic advice she often gives to me. May Almighty God shield them from the peril of this world and bless their entire endeavour Amen.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The successful completion of this project work could not have been a reality without the encouragement of my --- and other people. My immensely appreciation goes to my humble and able supervisor mr. --- for his kindness in supervising this project.
My warmest gratitude goes to my parents for their moral, spiritual and financial support throughout my study in this institution.
My appreciation goes to some of my lecturers among whom are Mr. ---, and Dr. ---. I also recognize the support of some of the staff of --- among whom are: The General Manager, Deputy General manager, the internal Auditor Mr. --- and the ---. Finally, my appreciation goes to my elder sister ---, my lovely friends mercy ---, ---, --- and many others who were quite helpful.

---

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This work ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' research material is a complete and well researched project material strictly for academic purposes, which has been approved by different Lecturers from different higher institutions. We made Preliminary pages, Abstract and Chapter one of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' visible for everyone, then the complete material on ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' is to be ordered for. Happy viewing!!!

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE
TITLE PAGE
APPROVAL PAGE
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
3. AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
4. SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
7. SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

1. CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2. DEFINITION OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE
3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA

2.2.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN NIGERIA.
2.2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN SOUTH AFRICA
2.3 TYPES OF IMMUNITY
2.3.1 THE ROLE OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
2.4 FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE OF IMMUNITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATION
2.4.1 GENERAL CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATION
2.4.2 GENERAL CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY
2.4.3 CHALLENGES OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE ON INTERNATIONAL LAWS
2.5 THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE
2.6 IMMUNITY CLAUSE AND ITS ABUSE 
2.7 REVIEW ON EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY
CHAPTER THREE
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE UNDER THE NIGERIAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION
3.1.1 JUDICIAL DECISIONS UNDER IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN NIGERIA
3.1.2 JUDICIAL DECISIONS UNDER IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.2 THE RATIONALE BEHIND IMMUNITY CLAUSE AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE CONSTITUTION
3.3 IMMUNITY CLAUSE AND RULE OF LAW
3.3.1 SUPREMACY OF LAW
3.3.2 EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
3.3.3 RESPECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
3.4 IMMUNITY CLAUSE AND NATURAL JUSTICE

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0     COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE IMMUNITY CLAUSES IN NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
4.1.1 ANALYSIS OF THE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN NIGERIA
4.1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN SOUTH AFRICA
4.2 EFFECTS OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE ON DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATIONS IN NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
4.3 PROBLEMS, IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION
4.3.1 PROBLEMS, IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION
4.3.2 PROBLEMS, IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY CLAUSE IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTION
4.4 CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF IMMUNITY CLAUSE AS AN ENGINEER OF CORRUPTION
CHAPTER FIVE

1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2. CONCLUSION
3. RECOMMENDATION

TABLE OF CASES
Onabanjo vs. Concord Press Ltd., 1984 2
HC Ogun State and Aku vs.
Akume vs. N.P.N. Benue State (1984)
case of Obih versus Mbakwe in 1984
case between Obasanjo and Buhari in the year 2004
A case in point here was Akume vs. N.P.N
cases are Obi vs. Mbakwe, and Onabanjo vs. Concord Press
case in Egwuatu vs. Attorney General of Anambra State (1984)
cases involving Obi vs. Mbakwe
LIST OF STATUTES
Art;95oftheUNConventionontheLawoftheSea,1982provides
168US250(1897).
Sec 4(3) (c).
NCLR. 449 at 460
Act 1978
Section267of the 1979Constitution
section 4 of the Police Act
Section 308 1(a-c), 2 and 3 of the 1999 Constitution

CHAPTER ONE
1.0                         GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
After several years of military rule,Nigeria has returned to ademocratic rule since29 May, 1999. However,the experienceso far since Nigeria has returned to democratic rule shows that all has not been well withour democratic experience, especially as it affects the immunity of chief executives fromjudicialproceedings.
NigeriabeingacommonwealthnationinheritedtheEnglishcommonlawanddoctrineofsovereign immunity fromBritain.Immunity isan antique concept whichtakesroots inthe ancient feudal structure of England which later became a common law principle. Theroyal and legal phraseology that the king can do no wrong (Rex non potestpeccare) is ofhistorical antiquity. Though, the doctrine as it is understood today is one of the vestigesand accoutrement of colonialism in this part of the continent. Under the doctrine, it ispresumedthatthekingcandonowrong,helackslegalcapacityofdoingwrong,and kings must not and was not allowed or entitled to do wrong. Though, if the king didwrong,hejust could not besued as H. Street said:

…sotheking,attheapexofthefeudalpyramidandsubjecttothejurisdictionof
noothercourt wasnot suable.                       

Thus, two fundamental legal principles of great antiquity-one procedural and the othersubstantive, accounted for sovereign immunity which made direct action or justificationofcertain claims againstthe crown impossible:

The feudal rule that no lord of the manor could be sued in his own court meantthat the king being the great overlord of all and the peak of the English legalsystem, could not be suing his own court or in the court of any of his vassals.Added to this procedural difficulty wasprinciple of substantive law that ‘the kingcan do no wrong’ which meant that no act or omissionof the sovereign was opentoimpeachmentorcondemnationonthegroundthatitwaswrongfulortortuous.
Subject or vassals with any claim against the king in the 13th century presented them tothe king informally, whereupon the king might refer them to his Court by endorsing itwith mark ‘Fiat justitia’. This was through a procedure known as Petition of Rightintroduced during the reign of Edward 1. Any subject prejudiced by a royal refusal toconsider his petition was without remedy. Petition of Right was limited to recovery oflandandproprietaryactionwhileotherheadsofactionwereleftunremedied.Petitionof Right could also not lie in torts; this is based on Brocton’s proposition, that ‘the king cando no wrong’.
Commentingon this,CockburnC.Jobserved as follows:
…a petition of right in respect of a wrong in legal sense of the term shows noright to legal redress against the sovereign for the maxim that king can do nowrongappliestopersonaswellaspoliticalwrongs….
Petition of right lasted till only the 14th century.Since the 15thcentury, petitionof righthad fallen into disuse due to procedural difficulties. It was superseded by the real actions,‘traverseandmonstransdedroits.’Petitionofrightrevivedin19thcenturyas‘monstransdetroits’wassupersededandwent intodisuse.However,onthe13thFebruary1947, ViscountJowitt,introducedtotheHouseofLordsagovernmentsponsored crown proceedings bill which was endorsed into law on 13th July,1947 andcameinto force on 1st January 1948, this is otherwise known asCrown ProceedingAct(CPA)1947.ThisActabolishedthepetitionofrightprocedureandaswellmakes crown not only liable in contract but also in torts.Thus, the historical myth surroundingthe crown was totallyremoved.

Comingbackhome,immunityingovernmentisnotstrangeeventoourpeopleinSouthwest of Nigeria. Before the advent of colonization, in the18th and 19th centuries,our kings governed us in our communities. These kings reigned and ruled absolutely andexecutively, as they have rights over life and death of their subjects.Hence, they arebeing described as ‘kabiyesi’, meaning no one dare query the acts and deeds of kings. Inthosedays,theywereknowntocommitallformsofcriminalatrocitiesanddiabolicalacts,butnoonedarequerythembecauseoftheir‘ divinerights’ andimmunityingovernance,even untodeath.
These are the kind of powers and immunities which traditional rulers enjoy in the past butin this modern era,they have been deprived of such prerogatives and immunities andanyonecaughtinthedespicableacteitherpracticingdirectlyorcovertlywillbeprosecuted if found guilty,might even be given death sentences. An example is the OsunStatemonarchwho is presentlystandingtrial forallegedrapeofacorps member.
It is from this historical background (especially the colonization experience) thatwe havethe immunity clause which protects the President,Governors and their deputies undersection308ofthe1999Constitution.Itmusthoweverberecalledthatthe1999Constitution was not the first to make provision for immunity of the President and theGovernor in this country. The 1963 republican Constitution made similar provisions. Inthe 1979 Constitution also similar provision was made for immunity, even the still born1989Constitutionhadtheimmunityclause.Infact,underthe1979Constitution,inthe case of Chief (Mrs.) FunmilayoRansomeKuti v Attorney General of the Federation, theSupreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the maxim ‘rexnonpotestprecarre’(theKingcan do no wrong).
However, this study were carried out to compare the practice of immunity clause in Nigeria and South Africa.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Immunity clause as enshrined under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria hasgeneratedprotractedcontroversiesforandagainstitsinclusionintherubricsofNigerianconstitutionallaws and this is been considered as the major causewidespread of corruption by Nigerian leaders.It has been criticized as an enablement of high-level corruption and a colossal waste ofthe nation's common wealth by those in whose hands it is entrusted, because it shields them from justice andpromotesthecultureofimpunity.Sincetheonsetofthefourthrepublicin1999,nofewerthantwenty-threeformergovernors have been arrested or prosecuted for corruption. Of this number,only six have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment within and outside Nigeria.Thisnumber,however,isabysmalincomparisontothe 17 former governors facing different degrees of criminal charges in Nigerian courts and those still underinvestigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.Indeed,theimmunityclausehasbecomeanalbatrosstoNigeria’sdemocracy and other countries (such as South Africa) economicgrowth and development. This has led to various calls for removal of this clause from the Constitution to giveroom for better accountability and responsibility in governance, especially against the fact that other countrieshave slowly but steadily moved away from shielding their political representatives from criminal prosecution forcorruptionandmisappropriationofpublicfund. This study compares the practice of immunity clause in Nigeria and south Africa.
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main aim of this work is to carry out a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause practiced in Nigeria and South Africa. The study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

1. To examine the concept of immunity clause as it covers countries constitution.
2. To contribute to the contemporary legalproblemsonimmunityofthechiefexecutivesthatarepresentlyunfoldinginourdemocratic experience.
3. To access information on how immunity clause is practice in Nigeria and South Africa.

1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The project work seeks to concentrate on the abuse of immunity clause by politicians inNigeria. This project work will discuss more on executive immunity. The relevant laws of Nigeriaparticularly the present 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria will beexamined alongside with the 1979, 1989 and 1963 Constitutions of Nigeria, which will comparatively analysed with constitutions practice of immunity clause of south Afirca, so as to serve as a comparative study to the Nigerianexperience.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will serve as an avenue for providing the incumbent a free hand and mind to perform the dutiesandresponsibilitiesofhisofficewithoutdistractionfromlitigation. Theimmunityisessentiallyfortheprotectionofthedignityoftheofficeandnotfortheindividualofficeholderassuch. This study will provide the reader as well as the student with the knowledge on how immunity clause is performed both in Nigeria and South Africa.
With this study, legal problems can best be solved by getting the problems discussed. If those concernedwith law can come out and express their opinion on a legal problem, solution to thatproblem will not be farfetched. It is with this view in mind that this writer decides toembark on this study and it is hoped that by the end of this write up, the writer would havebeen able to give a useful suggestions as to how the problem of immunity of chiefexecutivesin Nigeriacanbest be tackled
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Thiswork shall invoketheuseof doctrinalresearchmethodology.Thisiscomprisedofprimary sources such as Constitution, Statutes and judicial authorities as well as secondarysources such as articles, journal, publications, legal framework both local and international, as well as theopinion of text writers and jurists.The primary sources of law to be consulted include,butnotlimitedto;statutesliketheConstitutionofNigeria1979,1989and1999. In the same vein, the work also madereference to primary sources of Nigerian and South Africa Constitution and secondarysources such Journals on immunity clause throughwhichthemodernscholarsadoptedinarrivingatcomparative analysis of the two countries.
1.7 SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS

The work is organized as follows: chapter one discuses the introductory part of the work, chapter two presents the literature review of the study,  chapter three describes the critical examination of immunity clause under the Nigerian and South African constitution, chapter four discusses the comparative analysis of the immunity clauses in Nigeria and South Africa, chapter five summarizes the research outcomes and the recommendations.

CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In spite of its good intentions, the application of the constitutional provision on immunity for certain categories of elected public officers in Nigeria arguably has more negative than positive implications for democracy and democratic consolidation. It is particularly identified with lack of transparency, embezzlement, lack of accountability and other forms of abuse of power that detract from the beauty and essence of democracy.
The implications of the above for democratic consolidation in Nigeria are quite threatening. That a sitting governor or president cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed against the state simply puts such individuals above the law. It would be a means of breeding criminals in power. On the other hand, considering the super-competitive nature of Nigerian politics and the knack of losing parties in Nigerian elections to attempt to shoot down the administration of the winning party, it is necessary to give minimum protection to sitting governments by re-considering the circumstances, terms and conditions under which the immunity clause should apply. This is the need to strike a delicate, yet workable, stabilizing balance on the one hand, between granting unqualified, open-ended and potentially insidious protection to political office-holders to commit crimes against the state and the people with impunity and, on the other, exposing government to the destabilizing machinations of bad losers at elections, who may wish to truncate the smooth process of governance whenever they fail to win elections.
It is the contention of this paper that striking this delicate balance is a major means of ensuring democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Re-inventing the immunity clause in this creative way has several potential advantages. First, it will check the excesses and profligacy of political office holders. Second, it will protect government against frivolous and destabilizing machinations of political opponents in order to ensure governmental stability and advance development. Third, it is a means of safeguarding the interests, freedoms and liberties of the citizenry against a government bent on taking vengeance on its perceived ‘enemies’.
Although there have been calls for the total removal of the immunity clause from the constitution, a review of the provisions to take care of its loopholes that political office holders have exploited to commit political and financial crimes against the Nigerian people and State in the past will be in order. This is in agreement with the recommendation of the National Judicial Council to the Sub-Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution for the amendment of the clause to cover only civil matters, and not criminal ones. This is important for us to be able to combine accountability with performance in government so that democracy can be consolidated in Nigeria and the people can actually reap the dividends of their hard-earned democracy.
Having considered how immunity clause is treated in Nigeria and some otherjurisdictions of the world, we are now put in an objective position to judge whetherimmunity clause is a curse or a blessing in Nigerian governance,considering the fact thatthe degree of immunity varies from one country to the other.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Adding my contribution to what eminent Nigerianshas contributed, it will be very proper to bear in mind the recommendation of the National Judicial Council in a Memorandum to the sub-committee on Supplementary and General Provisions of the Joint National
Assembly Committee of the 1999 Constitution which has been quoted in the course of this work.182 The Council however recommends that:
In view of all the following, the committee is of the opinion that the immunity granted underSection 308 be reviewed with a view to closing avenues of abuse.
I am in agreement with the recommendations of the National Judicial Council. It has however been suggested that a qualified immunity which covers the official acts of the office holders only should be allowed in the constitution. According to a writer:
It is obvious that section 308 is a provision too broad for the purpose for which it is meant.It is in effect an excessive protection of the president and governors as what is sought to be achieved through the section can better be achieved if the immunity is limited to the official transactions of the persons named in the section to the exclusion of every other transaction, they may get involved in. such qualified immunity offers a double barrel blessing. the first is that it would reduce the arbitrariness of such officials, and second, it would roll away the stone from the iniquitous tomb to which section 308 has confined people’s fundamental right to sue when their rights have beentrampled upon by any of the persons named in the section…it is time for the legislature to amend the immunity provision of the constitution to make it applicable only when the official acts of the persons named in the section come into question.
While agreeing with the above recommendations, it is necessary to give my own recommendation on the debate. The various arguments already captured in this paper have their demerits and merits. It is however observed that an amendment of the provision of executive immunity in the Constitution to meet the demands of the time maybe met with stiff resistance mounted by its beneficiaries and those in support for the retention of the clause.Thus, a middle course must be reached.
The support here is not the total abrogation of the clause, rather the opinion here is that executive immunity should be contained in an Act of the National Assembly and not the Constitution. This makes for easy amendment to suit changing circumstance in the nation’s political life. For this to be made possible, item 47 of the second schedule(exclusive legislative list) of the Constitution which provides for ‘powers of the NationalAssembly, and Privileges and Immunities of the Members’ should be enlarged to include‘Immunities of the President and Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and
Governors and Deputy Governors’, thereby empowering the National Assembly to validly make a law on executive immunity. This power should be exclusive to the
National Assembly and not shared with the State Houses of Assembly for the sake of uniformity. The benefit of such an amendment is that the immunity enjoyed by one organ of government only is not given a special status. If any organ of government should enjoy constitutional immunity at all, it should not be the executive for two reasons;
First,the executive is the domineering organ in the Nigerian governmental structure as a result of prolonged military rule.185Secondly, a break from the concept of monarchical sovereignty under colonialism and the position under the petition of rights laws should ordinarily require that no special immunity status is granted to the executive. Anamendment as proposed would curb excessive rigidity in terms of preservation of executive immunity so that possible amendment to meet changing circumstance is made possible, while at the same time, impreciseness is avoided.
Absolute immunity as it is at the moment is not good for the development of democracy and good governance in the country, the argument that the immunity is only for the period of office, notwithstanding. The immunity that should be in a Statute as I have proposed should be a qualified one in the realm of criminal prosecutions just like
Tanzania, India and Cyprus mentioned above. It is however suggested that executive immunity should stop where the credibility to continue is in issue these offences include: Economic/ Financial Crimes, Corrupt Practices, Forgery, Rape and Homicide. These are offences that Nigerians loathe. It is the view here that just as any one aspiring to public office in Nigeria should not have been tried and convicted of any of these crimes, so also any one alleged to have committed these offences should not be allowed to remain in office under the guise of immunity. Furthermore, any Governor, or even the President and their deputies who are alleged to have committed any of these crimes would suffer from moral/political credibility crises. At such times, the business of governance is hardly concentrated upon.
In order to curb frivolous allegations, these offences must be those alleged to have been committed during their tenure in office or committed in order to attain the office.
Financial crimes, Homicide and offences mentioned above committed before office and which were not in furtherance of the attainment of the political office should be prosecuted at the end of the tenure of the executive office holder.
Another aspect to look at is whether the National Assembly’s capacity to legislate on
executiveimmunity through item 47 does not leave the executive at the mercy of the legislature? This problem can be solved by providing a procedure for operation and amendment of the law made pursuant in the item, just like we have procedures in section 143 and188 of the constitution for removal of President and Governors. This is to check errant legislators.
How will the executive office holder be made to answer for his alleged heinous crimes? Will the Attorney General be fair to the State in handling such prosecution? In the law of the National Assembly on executive immunity proposed in this paper , all those procedures would be outlined, just like that of India. The suggestion here is that upon the completion of investigation by the relevant agencysequel to an allegation of the commission of any of these crimes, the evidence gathered should be brought before a High Court Judge by an independent counsel just like that of the United State who would access the evidence to know whether a prima facie case has been established against the office holder enjoying immunity, thus necessitating a full trial. The essence of establishing a prima facie case is to further forestall frivolous prosecution. Where the judge rules in the affirmative, then the office holder goes on vacation to stand trial.
5.3 CONCLUSION
The legislative intent for providing constitutional immunity clauses inmost commonwealth jurisdictions is to protect the dignity and integrityof the holder of an elective office. This intention is particularly morefundamental and essential in Nigeria given the fledgling and emergingnature of the nation’s democratic institutions. Removing the immunityclausecouldopenafloodgateoffrivolouslitigationsagainstelectedofficers especially from “professional litigants” with the sole aim andobjective of distracting the officer from the very serious business ofgovernance.
The investigation of the activities of the incumbent office holdersshould continue as it does not conflict with the provisions of the sectionandtheycanbemadetoanswertotheseinvestigationsassoonastheyleaveoffice. However,constitutionalimmunityshouldnotbeextended to the legislative arm of government because such immunitydoesnotavailthethirdarmofgovernment–thejudiciary.Moreimportantly, all the members of the legislature are equal upon beingelected.Theleadersbecomeprimusinterparesuponelectiontoleadership positions and can be removed anytime and substituted byanothermemberwithoutorwithminimaldisruptiontolegislativebusiness.
Furthermore,theprocessofremovalfromofficeofprotectedofficersas provided for in the Constitution should be used in proven cases ofbreach of trust, corruption or mismanagement. The officer concernedcan be made to face charges as soon as they are lawfully removed fromofficeastheimmunitywillabateimmediately.

---

CHAPTER TWO: The chapter one of this work has been displayed above. The complete chapter two of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' is also available. Order full work to download. Chapter two of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' consists of the literature review. In this chapter all the related work on ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' was reviewed.

CHAPTER THREE: The complete chapter three of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' is available. Order full work to download. Chapter three of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' detector consists of the methodology. In this chapter all the method used in carrying out this work was discussed.

CHAPTER FOUR: The complete chapter four of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' is available. Order full work to download. Chapter four of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' detector consists of all the test conducted during the work and the result gotten after the whole work

CHAPTER FIVE: The complete chapter five of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' is available. Order full work to download. Chapter five of ''a comparative analysis of constitutional immunity clause in nigeria and south africa'' detector consist of conclusion, recommendation and references.

---

To "DOWNLOAD" the complete material on this particular topic above click "HERE"

Do you want our Bank Accounts? please click HERE

To view other related topics click HERE

To "SUMMIT" new topic(s), develop a new topic OR you did not see your topic on our site but want to confirm the availiability of your topic click HERE

Do you want us to research your new topic? if yes, click "HERE"

Do you have any question concerning our post/services? click HERE for answers to your questions

---

For more information contact us through any of the following means:

Mobile No :+2348146561114 or +2347015391124 [Mr. Innocent]

Email address :engr4project@gmail.com

Watsapp No :+2348146561114

---

COUNTRIES THAT FOUND OUR SERVICES USEFUL

Australia, Botswana, Canada, Europe, Ghana, Ireland, India, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, United States, United Kindom, Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc
Support: +234 8146561114 or +2347015391124

Watsapp No :+2348146561114

Email Address :engr4project@gmail.com

---

FOLLOW / VISIT US VIA: