The High Court rejected a claim of judicial review on behalf of the applicant, Alamieyeseigha, the Governor of Bayelsa State in Nigeria. He had sought to challenge the decision to prosecute him for money laundering offences on the basis that he was entitled to State Immunity. After eight days of deliberations the court ruled that he had no entitlement to state immunity, and that his state, Bayelsa, which was described as a sub-state and not sovereign, equally had no right to immunity.

 

The judge outlined the claimant's submission that there are five criteria which are necessary to determine if a federal state such as Bayelsa is entitled to state immunity. Among these are that the sovereignty in question has been divided; that the sub-state enjoys substantial and genuine autonomy; that it (sub-state) has substantial competence over traditional government functions within its territory which is not subject to the intervention of the federal government; that such autonomy and competence are irrevocable in the absence of consent of the sub-states as necessary; and that it is not a necessary pre-condition for qualification for immunity that the sub-state possesses foreign relations power. The judge also said the basis of the defendant's case is that Bayelsa is not a sovereign state that possesses an international personality and that Bayelsa and thus the claimant is not entitled to an immunity of its own under international law.