Constitution
§4.5 — Judicial Review and Scope
Read the operative provision in the annotated Constitution.
Open provision →The Administrative Finality Act passed both chambers by comfortable margins. Its stated purpose was efficiency: intelligence-adjacent residency determinations involved classified information that courts could not be permitted to review. The Act declared such determinations "final and unreviewable" — no appeal, no judicial challenge, no forum for contesting the decision.
Mira Oyelaran had lived in the Republic for nineteen years. Her permanent residency renewal was denied on the basis of an "adverse intelligence determination." No reason was stated. No hearing was offered. Under the Act, no court could hear her challenge. She had a concrete, articulable legal injury — loss of lawful residency status — and no forum for relief.
§4.5 — The Right of Access
The Legislature may not leave a legal injury without a forum.
§4.5 is direct: any person with a concrete, articulable legal injury has the right to seek relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. The Legislature may not structure the judicial system in a manner that leaves any category of legal injury without a forum for relief. The Administrative Finality Act purported to do exactly that — to create a category of governmental decision that produced legal injuries with no constitutional path to challenge.
Oyelaran challenged the Act in the competent court and sought review through the applicable appellate process. The Supreme Court ultimately heard the constitutional issue; a challenge to a federal statute alone did not supply original jurisdiction. Intelligence sensitivity could be managed within lawful proceedings, not by leaving the claimed injury without any forum.
The SC's Ruling
The Act is void to the extent it eliminates the forum.
The Court held that jurisdiction-stripping legislation is constitutional as a general matter — the Legislature may allocate jurisdiction among courts. But it may not strip jurisdiction from all courts over a category of claim, leaving persons with concrete injuries without any forum. The Administrative Finality Act was void to the extent it purported to do so. The intelligence sensitivity of the underlying determination was a matter for the court to manage — through sealed proceedings, cleared counsel, classified filings — not a basis for eliminating review entirely.
Oyelaran's case was remanded to the Appellate Court for proceedings consistent with the SC's ruling. The classified basis for the adverse determination would be reviewed by the court, not disclosed publicly. The forum existed. §4.5 had held.