By Dr. Raphael Christopher CIM, PGCE, PGOSDC, FAETC, CELTA.
Senior Member NBA Enugu Branch ©️All rights reserved
In Nigeria’s constitutional framework, an important legal question arises where a law assented to by the President differs from the version published in the Official Gazette: does the law take effect based on presidential assent, or must its operation be suspended until the discrepancy is resolved?
Under sections 58 and 59 of the 1999 Constitution, a bill becomes law upon presidential assent (or legislative override of veto). Constitutionally, therefore, it is the assented text—being the culmination of the legislative process—that gives the law legal life. Gazetting, while crucial, is traditionally regarded as a mode of official publication, not the act that creates the law itself.
From this perspective, the better view is that a law validly passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President is in force, notwithstanding defects or discrepancies in the gazetted copy. To hold otherwise would elevate an administrative act of publication above a constitutionally completed legislative process, a result inconsistent with separation of powers.
However, this position is not absolute. The Official Gazette serves as the authoritative public record relied upon by courts, government agencies, lawyers, and citizens. Where the gazetted version materially differs from the assented bill, serious problems of legal certainty, enforceability, and fairness arise. Citizens cannot reasonably be bound by provisions that differ from what is officially published as law.
Accordingly, a distinction must be drawn between legal validity and practical enforceability. While the assented law may be legally in force in principle, its implementation should be treated with caution where discrepancies exist. Courts are likely to insist on examining legislative records to determine the authentic text of the law before enforcing contested provisions. In practice, enforcement agencies may need to hold affected sections in abeyance to avoid arbitrary or unconstitutional application.
Where discrepancies are clerical or typographical, swift correction through an erratum or re-gazetting may suffice without suspending the law. But where discrepancies are substantive, affecting rights, obligations, taxes, penalties, or institutional powers, prudence and constitutionalism demand temporary restraint pending clarification, correction, or judicial determination.
Ultimately, the safest constitutional position is this: the assented law exists, but defective gazetting undermines certainty. Until discrepancies are resolved, the National Assembly, the Executive, and the courts have a shared responsibility to prevent confusion, injustice, and erosion of public trust.
In a constitutional democracy, the law must not only be valid—it must be clear, accessible, and faithful to the legislative will.
Dr. Raphael Christopher, Senior Member NBA Enugu Branch.
In this article