The doctrine of “covering the field” is a principle in constitutional theory that is applicable in federal constitutions. This principle is relevant when legislative powers are divided between the federal government and the federating states through Enumerated Lists. It specifically pertains to legislative acts (statutes) created by both the federal and state legislatures under the Concurrent Legislative List. The phrase “covering the same ground” was used in the case of Houston v Moore 18 US 1 (1820) in the United States.
The principle of federal supremacy states that when there is a conflict between state legislation and legislation passed by the federal parliament on a matter in the concurrent legislative list, an inconsistency arises. In such cases, the law enacted by the federal parliament takes precedence over the state law, rendering it ineffective while the federal law remains valid. This principle is based on two main reasons: (1) It would be inappropriate for a lower legislative body to legislate on the same subject matter as a higher legislative body, and (2) It would be oppressive to require a citizen to obey two laws simultaneously on the same subject. This principle is rooted in the belief that actions of the federal government within a federal system of government bind both states and their agencies within their designated powers. An example illustrating this doctrine is found in Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn (1926) 37 CLR 466 case where a federal Act regulated working hours while a state law attempted to establish its own regulations. The High Court of Australia ruled that the state law was ineffective.
In practice, the operation of the doctrine is examined through Federal Exhaustion and Exclusive & Complete Coverage. However, it does not always apply if both federal and state laws are present. The federal law must demonstrate its intention to fully cover the field rather than just supplement or build upon state law. How can the complete or exhaustive intention of the federal law be shown?
In instances where the federal parliament has the authority to regulate a specific matter in a specific way, state legislatures cannot intervene by imposing additional regulations as a complement to Congress’ legislation. The case of A G Ondo v A G Federation pertains to constitutional coverage, which applies to both the federal and state governments.
According to the case of Attorney-General of Ogun State v Attorney-General of the Federation [1982] 2 NCLR 166, 180-181, and the case of Attorney-General of Abia State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 9 NSCQLR 670, 785, 788, no legislation at either the federal or state level can expand, alter or subtract from a right defined or provided for in the constitution without a formal constitutional amendment. This is known as mutually exclusive powers.
In federal systems like Nigeria, where powers are divided between the federal and state legislatures, a law passed by the National Assembly takes precedence over state legislation when it concerns a subject within the jurisdiction of the states –A. G Lagos State V A. G federation. However, there are instances where both the National Assembly and State House of Assembly may have overlapping authority. In such cases, neither legislation is considered beyond the legal power if the field of legislation is clearly defined. If the field is not clear, the legislation enacted by the National Assembly has more weight – A. G Ondo v A.
G Federation. Beneficial Statutes Laws that are beneficial in character fall into a different category. The relevant statutes in this context are those that establish responsibilities in emergency or rescue situations. If both a federal statute and a state statute create beneficial responsibilities for the public on the same concurrent subject, they are considered to complement each other. It cannot be assumed that there is an inconsistency or an intent to fully regulate the field through federal legislation at the expense of state law. In such scenarios, the course of action is determined by examining what measures have been taken under the federal law.
According to the case A G Ondo V A G Federation Partial Coverage, when action is taken under federal law, the execution of the federal law overrides state law in cases of inconsistency. However, in the case A G of Ogun State v Aberaugba (19850 )NWLR (Pt, 3) 395, it was determined that if a federal law only partially covers a concurrent subject-matter, state legislation can still validly address the areas that are not covered by the federal legislation.
According to A G Lagos State v A G Federation, if a federal law only enhances a federal purpose in a concurrent subject, a state can also enact its own legislation to enhance its own purposes. Similarly, Adetona v Attorney-General, Ogun State explains that the federal law’s application is limited to the federal level, allowing states to exercise their legislative powers on the same subject on the Concurrent List.
Both federal and state laws can be considered as a unified legislation in certain cases, where they are allowed by federal law to address a situation alternatively. However, the federal law only partially covers such situations. The state law can be revived and become effective again even if the federal law is already in operation. If a federal legislation is found to have fully addressed the field, it does not completely invalidate the state law, but rather makes it inactive for as long as the federal law is in effect.
According to the case of Ogun State vs. The Federation (1982) 3 NCLR p. 204, when a state law contradicts a subsequent federal law, the state law becomes ineffective. However, once the federal law is no longer in effect, the state law regains its effectiveness. Section 4 (5) establishes that laws made by the national assembly (federal law) have supremacy over those made by the house of assembly (state law) when a court determines that the federal law covers the entire subject matter. In cases of conflict, the national assembly’s law prevails and the state law is considered void to some extent.
On the other hand, under the Doctrine of covering the field, a federal and state law do not create inconsistency; instead, it renders the state law ineffective while the federal law is in effect. If
the federal law ceases to have force, then reeffectiveness occurs forthe state lwa.
The term “inconsistency” in cases under the doctrine refers to a conflict between two laws that renders a state law inoperative, rather than invalid. When the court determines that federal law governs the subject matter legislated upon, particularly in the concurrent list, the following effects occur: 1) If a state legislation contradicts federal legislation, it is considered void and without effect due to inconsistency – Attorney-General of Ogun State v Aberuagba (1985) 4 SC 288, 328. 2) However, if the state legislation aligns with federal legislation, meaning they are substantially similar, the state legislation remains dormant and inactive while the federal legislation is in effect – A G Ogun State vs. A G Federation (1982) 3 NCLR p. 204. 3) If the federal legislation is repealed for any reason, the dormant state legislation becomes active until another federal legislation covering the same area is introduced – A G Lagos State v A G Federation.
The doctrine of covering-the-field has both advantages and disadvantages in a federal system. It is beneficial for ensuring consistency in laws within the Concurrent List. However, a federal system acknowledges the existence of diverse cultures, traditions, religions, economies, and environments among its component parts. Consequently, it is inevitable that a state adversely affected by a federal law will sometimes be unable to successfully wait for the federal parliament to amend it.
