How delegated legislation are controlled

 Delegated legislation are controlled in three ways: 

The Legislative Control

The legislature may delegate powers to the executive to perform certain legislative functions. In the same vein, it possesses the power to control its exercise. The word ‗delegation‘ implies that the powers are committed to another person or body, which are as a rule, always subject to resumption by the power delegating (it) and many examples of this might be given. Unless, therefore, it is controlled by statute, the delegating power can at any time resume its authority. Legislative control is exercised by the legislature. As the donor of the power, it may prescribe that the proposed delegated legislation shall be laid before the legislature for purpose of debating, approving or rejecting it, suspend its approval or amend any part of the legislation etc It may also prescribe the procedure to be followed before a delegated legislation may be made. The enabling law may require that any regulation made under it be laid before the legislature before the legislation is made or as soon as possible immediately after making it. The operation or determinate may be time specific or contingent on the occurrence of a prescribed event.

The Executive Control

The executive exercises a lot of control over a delegate of power and delegated legislation. The control may be exercised by authorising the donee of the power to submit the proposed rules to the relevant supervisory body within the authority for perusal, consideration, amendment or approval. The essence of this is to avoid the embarrassment of the government. In addition, the executive exercises such control through the power to appoint and dismiss unbecoming donee of power. This is more so when the executive is embarrassed by certain rules and regulations made by a department which do not receive their approval. However, this power to dismiss must be exercised in accordance with the laid down rules. However, the delegated power may be revoked (In Ondo State University State vs. Folayan State University 1994) 7 NWLR pt.354, P. 1 SC). The Supreme Court held inter alia that power to delegate function also includes a power to revoke such delegation.

Judicial Control

Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides, among other things, that the judicial powers of the federation shall be vested in the courts established for the Federation and shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person. The truth about delegated legislation is that every subsidiary legislation is at the mercy of the courts, which apply settled principles for the interpretation of statutes. This is sometimes called judicial review. In Okogie & ORS vs. AG. Lagos State (1981) I NCLR 218 HC, Justice Agoro of the Lagos High Court held while setting aside the Lagos State Government Circular titled ―Abolition of Private Primary Education in Lagos State‖ dated 26th March,, 1980 and which was to take effect and operate in the State from 1st September, 1980. His lordship said that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to await the happening of the event before applying to the court for redress. The right to commence action in the court could be exercised by the plaintiff as soon as there exists a threat or likelihood of their fundamental right being infringed or contravened. Thus, the application made by the plaintiff was not premature. Also in Adewole & ORS vs Jakande & ORS (1981) I NCLR 262 HC a group of parents challenged the aforesaid Lagos State Government‘s circular purportedly abolishing private primary school education in Lagos State. The defendant‘s counsel contended that the applicants have no right in law, which they can claim to have been infringed or threatened as the Circular had not yet come into force and that the parents ought to have waited until September 1, 1980 to know the fate of the children. Omololu-Thomas J. held, setting aside the said circular as null and void, that the action of the plaintiffs was not premature. It is trite law that the courts have power in its equitable jurisdiction, and by the constitution, statute and rules of procedure and under its inherent powers to make a declaration against intending infringers, where there is a threatened breach of a right, and where the apprehended act would be unlawful.