By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

It was Ronald Reagan, the late American President who once said, “The first duty of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. If it fails in that duty, it has failed in everything.”

There are moments in the life of a nation when silence becomes complicity; when to remain unmoved is to be morally vacant. Nigeria, once heralded as the giant of Africa now lies crippled under the unbearable weight of insecurity, poverty, fear, hunger, and betrayal by successive leaderships. Conquered, not through foreign invasion, but by domestic abdication. Though the government has not fallen; yet governance has apparently disappeared. The State has not been overthrown; yet the citizen no longer feels safe and protected.

Not long ago, some law school students of the Yola Campus were easily abducted on their way back to school. The kidnappers demanded 10 million naira ransom for each of them. The recently released students narrated their heart- rending ordeal and trauma. Blood now appears to speak more loudly than ballots. From the north to the middle belt, across sleepy towns and forgotten villages, a grim and ghastly soundtrack has replaced the national anthem with gunfire, wailing, tears, blood, sorrow, pains, pangs, death, and then silence. In Benue State, the Yelwata massacre saw over 100 civilians slaughtered in their homes in a single night. Men were butchered; women raped; and children scattered aimlessly like leaves in the wind. Some years ago, the parents of kidnapped school children in Kaduna were ordered by abductors ( if they wanted their children to continue to be alive) to purchase and drop at a named location, food items such as rice, beans, millet, palm and vegetable oil, salt pepper, tatashe, tarodo, onions, and even garri and yams. This is not war by name, but war by every consequence. The soil of many communities across Nigeria is crimson red with the memory of lives unlived: gaping and unhealed lacerations on body and in heart. Nigeria has been virtually arrested by state captors who possess equal and occasionally more deadly power than the legitimate government. They have seized some swaps of land in Niger and Borno states, planting flags of sovereignty, collecting tax and issuing identity cards and passes to the natives.

But bullets alone are not the only weapons of war as shown by kidnappers, bandits, terrorists and other hoodlums. Hunger, a silent killer, now stalks the land with greater precision than any terrorists. In Katsina State, 652 children died from malnutrition in just six months. A death toll that should shake the heavens, but barely caused a stir among the ruling class. Nigeria is not a poor nation. It is a rich nation governed poorly, where oil flows like wine, yet millions go to bed tasting only sorrow. The minimum wage is a mockery. Dignity has become a luxury for the few. What do rights mean when a bag of rice costs more than the minimum wage? When a man cannot feed his family, his Constitution is a joke. Why do we wash our hands with spittle while living by the banks of a river?

The Nigerian Constitution in section 14 declares the people’s security and welfare as the primary duty of the government; yet that duty has been treated more like a mere campaign slogan, often mouthed during election campaigns, but never honoured in practice. Banditry spearheaded by Boko Haram has swallowed up whole states. ISWAP is no longer a distant threat; it is well organized, armed and expanding. The military bleeds in silence, with over 100 soldiers and 200 civilians lost in the past few months alone. Kidnappers no longer hide to operate, but now openly issue press statements. Terrorists now record documentaries with unveiled faces and release them to a now unshockable nation. And the people? They first hide and then vanish without a whimper.

The violence is not merely physical. It is also economic, mental, psychological and moral. A very tiny few elite cling tightly to obscene ill-gotten national wealth while the vast majority of the masses drown in scarcity and abject penury. The elite fly over the carnage in private jets while farmers are beheaded on their fields. Political leaders promise reforms, yet live like royalty. It is no longer corruption; it is organized looting and grand larceny; no longer negligence; but sanctioned abandonment. While advanced countries of the world plan for the next generation, Nigerian politicians plan for the next election.

To live in Nigeria today is to live in a state of controlled decay and fear. It is to watch one’s rights eroded, not by dictatorships, but by the very structures that were meant to defend them. The right to life, to dignity, to security, to housing and to economic survival are no longer guaranteed. They are gambles. And for many, losing that gamble means death.

This is not the collapse of a system. It is the system itself that is collapsing others. A system in which the powerful eat fat on the prayers of the desperate: where State budgets are shamelessly padded while emergency relief is rationed; where public office is longer service but with little harvest. Political leaders offer cheap speeches. But speeches alone do not stop bullets. Promises alone cannot feed the hungry. Press conferences do not resurrect the dead. Let this not be mistaken: Nigeria is not at peace. It is at war. A war waged not by foreign powers, but by a silent alliance of apathy, greed, corruption and neglect. And in this war, the casualty is not merely the body, it is the very soul of the Nigerian people.

THE CHALLENGE AND SCOPE OF INSECURITY IN NIGERIA

Having established the conceptual framework, the next task is to contextualize it within the Nigerian reality. Insecurity in Nigeria is multi-dimensional, taking forms such as political, health, economic/financial, food, educational, and social insecurity. Insecurity is simply the absence of security. However for our purposes, it is the political, physical and economic aspects of insecurity that will be the facts of this paper.

The key questions are: To what extent do these ills plague us? Are they existential? Have they always been part of our history, or have they worsened over time? The best way to examine this is to break it into its component parts, beginning with political insecurity.

Political Insecurity

Control of political power, especially at the centre, has always been fiercely contested in Nigeria, often resulting in violence and loss of life. Campaign rhetoric ahead of the 2025 general elections suggests a risk of history repeating itself, possibly in a worse form.

Political violence, starting with inflammatory speech, can quickly escalate to physical violence. This danger is compounded by ongoing insurgency from Boko Haram (now ISWAP), secessionist agitation by IPOB, politically-motivated shootings, and kidnapping for ransom. While kidnappings often have economic motives, they also feed political instability.

Economic Insecurity

Nigeria’s worsening poverty has earned it the label of the “poverty capital of the world.” This fuels political insecurity as unemployed youths are recruited by politicians for violent purposes. Economic hardship also drives vote-buying, where voters sell their ballots for minimal sums, leading to flawed electoral outcomes. This cycle is entrenched and unlikely to be broken before the 2027 elections.

Physical Insecurity

Pipeline vandalism and crude oil theft linked to economic insecurity have reached alarming levels, with allegations of involvement by security agencies. The loss in revenue forced the government to contract former militant leader Government Ekpemupolo (“Tompolo”) to help curb the menace.

Non-State Actors control territories in parts of the North-West, North-East, and North-Central, collecting taxes, issuing passes, planting flags and acting as parallel sovereign authorities. These areas are effectively beyond the reach of the Nigerian State.

The Constitutional Framework For Right to Life in Nigeria

A Constitution is not merely a collection of legal clauses. It is a nation’s vow, its solemn oath to the governed. It is the architecture of civil order, the map by which a society charts the moral boundaries of power. But when the Constitution becomes an artifact of aspiration rather than a living force of justice, it ceases to protect; it begins to mock. That is the Nigerian tragedy. For here is a nation that proclaims rights with poetic fervour, but practises repression with clinical precision.

Let us begin with the most sacred right of all the right to life, enshrined in section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution. It declares without ambiguity that “every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life.” This has been given judicial imprimatur and affirmed by Nigerian court, in several cases viz: Esabunor v Faweya, Ndubuisi v State, Azuogu v State. But what weight does this right carry in a country where a man may be shot by a bandit while returning from market; a child and mother killed in their home through a herder invasion; a villager executed by terrorists; no one is arrested; no one is prosecuted; no justice is served? The Constitution grants the right, yes, but the State withholds the protection. What use is a right to life in a terrain of death?

Each corpse buried without justice is a clause of the Constitution burned in effigy.

And consider Section 34(1) a guarantee that “every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person.” It forbids torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Yet across Nigeria’s vast terrain, dignity has become a vanishing dream. Men are paraded naked in front of cameras by vigilante groups; women stripped and whipped for so-called ‘moral offences’ by religious fanatics, citizens forced to pay ransoms for abducted relatives, while the State looks on, passive and paralyzed. Where is dignity when a woman has to sell her body to feed her children? Where is dignity when a man works six days a week and cannot afford bread?

The betrayal deepens when we examine section 14(2)(b), which declares- no, insists, that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” This is not a metaphor. It is the constitutional essence of statehood. A government that fails to secure and provide for its people ceases, by legal definition, to be legitimate. Yet, in Nigeria today, security is a luxury. In Zamfara, Niger, Katsina, Plateau State and even more recently, Edo, entire communities live in fear and under the reign of warlords, bandits and terrorist groups. In the South-East, armed separatist groups extort, maim, kill and burn. In the South-South, pirates rule the creeks. And all the while, Abuja issues banal statements, not solutions. (To be continued).

Thought for the week
“Laws must be clear, precise, and uniform for all citizens” – Marquis de Lafayette

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last outing in this treatise, we started with a brief introduction of the subject matter, after which we delved into the following sub-topics: Public Interest Litigation (PIL); Rule of Law; Significance in Nigeria’s Socio Political Context; Thesis Statement; we later x-rayed The Right to Development in the Nigerian Context focusing on: Origin and Definition under International Law; Constitutional Silence: Implicit vs. Explicit Recognition; Socio Economic Rights in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution; Justifiability, Debate and Attempts at Enforcement; Role of ECOWAS Court Decisions; we also discussed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a Tool for Enforcing the Right to Development with emphasis on: Defining the Rule of Law (Dicey, Constitutionalism, Judicial Independence); Does PIL Promote or Undermine the Rule of Law?; Weak Enforcement of Judgments & Executive Non Compliance (Dasuki case); Tensions Between Populist Litigation and Strict Legalism; we later concluded with some case studies and examples – SERAP v. Federal Government (Mismanagement of Education Budget) and Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Legacy & the Ogoni Nine: Environment as Development Right. Today, we shall continue with same – looking at the cases of ECOWAS Judgment in SERAP v. Nigeria (2010): Education Rights; Public Interest Litigation Advocated or Led by Mike Ozekhome SAN. After which we shall take a look at some challenges and fashion out the ways forward vide Legal Standing and Procedural Bottlenecks; Need for Constitutional Amendment to Enforce Chapter II; Judicial Independence and Political Will; Enhancing Legal Aid and Public Interest Lawyering and Coordinated Reform Strategy, we shall then conclude with the deep interconnection between development, justice, and the rule of law in Nigeria. Please read on.

C. ECOWAS Judgment in SERAP v. Nigeria (2010): Education Rights

As earlier noted, this landmark judgment reaffirmed that Nigeria’s failure to guarantee free basic education violated African Charter rights. Despite the Charter’s binding nature, Nigeria’s domestic legal framework and executive apathy meant that implementation was uneven—demonstrating both the power and limitations of regional jurisprudence in advancing development rights.

D. Public Interest Litigation Advocated or Led by Mike Ozekhome SAN

Prof. Mike Ozekhome SAN has been at the vanguard of PIL advocacy in Nigeria. As a co-founder of Civil Liberties Organization and the Universal Defenders of Justice Initiative, he has fought high-profile PIL cases and penned key essays on the role of litigation in promoting socio-economic rights and rule of law (Mike Ozekhome’s advocacy, PIL leadership roles (Wikipedia page – Civil Liberties Organization)). His writings frequently explore the intersections of PIL, governance, and constitutionalism in Nigeria.

NOW THIS

CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD

A. Legal Standing and Procedural Bottlenecks
Despite judicial strides in liberalizing locus standi through cases like COPW v. NNPC and rules like Rule 3(e) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Nigerian courts continue to exhibit uneven practice. In Edun v. Governor of Delta State (2021) LPELR-53369(CA), the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim of a concerned citizen against a state law on pensions, reiterating restrictive standing rules—demanding pecuniary or special damage over and above that of the general public. Such judicial resistance impedes public interest litigation, enables premature dismissals, and discourages NGOs and citizens from initiating PIL on socio-economic and environmental rights issues (Edun v. Governor of Delta State & Ors, Court of Appeal (2024) – restrictive locus standi upheld due to lack of special damage). Moreover, litigation is further obstructed by procedural hurdles: strict limitation statutes, high court fees, technical filings, and protracted preliminary objections all pose obstacles to access to justice.

B. Need for Constitutional Amendment to Enforce Chapter II
While Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution establishes desirable policies (education, health, housing), Section 6(6)(c) expressly bars courts from entertaining any enforcement suit on these directives.

This legal fiction leaves citizens with aspirational rights but no legal recourse. Notably, in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that turning non-justiciable directives into binding rights would require enabling legislation by the National Assembly (Section 6(6)(c) and jurisprudence on Chapter II – enforcement barred). The denial of enforceability under Section 6(6)(c) also precludes fundamental progress in socio-economic litigation. Legal scholars like Antia and Shehu argue for constitutional amendment to either remove Section 6(6)(c) or for targeted legislation under the Exclusive Legislative List (Item 60(a)) to domesticate and enforce Chapter II rights. See AG Ondo State v. AG Federation & Ors (2002) 27 WRN 1 (SC).

C. Judicial Independence and Political Will
A robust judiciary is essential for PIL viability. The courts must not only interpret PIL-friendly doctrines but also defend their rulings from executive influence. However, appointment politicization, inadequate budget allocations, and threats to judicial tenure undermine impartiality (Antia, “Arguments Against Non-Justiciable Status of Chapter II”, SSRN (2024); Shehu, AHRLJ (2013)). Even when courts deliver favorable rulings, political actors often ignore or undermine them. A pattern emerges: delayed implementation, lack of enforcement, or bureaucratic foot-dragging dominates responses to judgments requiring policy reforms—be it education, environmental cleanup, or public budgeting (Observations on judicial funding and appointments limiting impartiality – Vanguard commentary on judicial independence). Judicial robustness is also contingent upon political will: without executive cooperation or follow-through, PILs become hollow victories (Reports on non-compliance with ECOWAS court rulings – Serap-Nigeria, Vanguard.).

D. Enhancing Legal Aid and Public Interest Lawyering
Building a vibrant public interest litigation ecosystem requires investment in legal aid infrastructure. NGOs like SERAP, CLEEN Foundation, and Citizens’ Gavel, along with pro bono units within law firms, are critical but under-resourced (Institutional inertia described in LawCare and academic analyses.). To sustain PIL impact, systematic training for public law lawyers, senior advocates, and judges is essential. This includes education in socio-economic rights, procedural skills, advocacy tactics, and enforcement strategies. Institutional support—through public interest legal clinics, university partnerships, and judicial training workshops—can amplify advocacy reach and strategic coordination (Ebbo Achimugu, “Nigeria’s PIL NGOs and Legal Aid”, University of Lagos Policy Forum.).

E. Coordinated Reform Strategy
Implementing these changes demands a multi-faceted approach:
1. Constitutional / legislative reform – Eliminate or revise Section 6(6)(c) and enforce Directive Principles through binding national instruments.
2. Judicial training and procedural reform – Standardize PIL-friendly standing thresholds and procedure across courts.
3. Civil society capacity building – Establish pro bono networks, fund PIL litigation, institutionalize mentorship and strategic litigation support.

Executive accountability mechanisms – Develop legal frameworks or monitoring bodies to ensure compliance with court and regional rulings, potentially linked to budgetary oversight (Experts’ recommendations on coordinated reform strategy – SSRN analysis, LawPavilion proposals.).

AND THIS

VII. CONCLUSION

This study underscores the deep interconnection between development, justice, and the rule of law in Nigeria. The right to development, encompassing education, health, environment, and livelihoods, relies not just on visionary constitutional drafting but on enforceable legal frameworks. With courts historically unwilling or unable to enforce socio-economic entitlements, public interest litigation has emerged as a vital—but partial—remedy. PIL has expanded standing rules, activated international and regional jurisprudence (e.g., ECOWAS judgments), and given voice to marginalized groups. Yet, structural barriers—procedural technicalities, constitutional inflexibilities, weak judicial independence, and political indifference—stay the promise of justice.

Therefore, PIL must be recognized as one essential component within a broader reform agenda. Achieving meaningful development and strengthening Nigeria’s rule of law requires:
• Constitutional and legislative amendments to enforce Chapter II socio-economic rights.
• Institutional support for civil society lawyers and NGOs.
• Judicial independence and political will to respect court rulings.
• Mechanisms ensuring enforcement and accountability.

Only through cohesive reform—linking legal, institutional, and political dimensions—can PIL fulfill its promise. The aim must not be isolated litigation victories but structural transformation: where development becomes a justiciable right, enforcement mechanisms function, and the judiciary, legislature, and executive operate within a genuine rule-of-law framework. (The end).

THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK

“Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance” – Ban Ki-moon.

“Sustainable development is a fundamental break that’s going to reshuffle the entire deck. There are companies today that are going to dominate in the future simply because they understand” – Francois-Henri Pinault.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Right to Development

The right to development is an inalienable human right affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development (1986). It asserts that every individual and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized (“Right to development” – history and UN Declaration (1986) (Wikipedia, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journals, Serap Nigeria, Unilag Law Review, Gravitas Review)). Regionally, this right is embedded in Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory (Article 22, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (recognized by Nigeria) (Wikipedia)).

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Public Interest Litigation in Nigeria refers to legal actions brought not by directly affected individuals, but by public spirited citizens or civil society organizations to protect collective rights or public goods. The scope for PIL broadened significantly with Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2018), where the Supreme Court expanded locus standi doctrine—allowing NGOs to sue on behalf of affected communities even absent direct injury (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2013–2018); locus standi liberalisation by Supreme Court (Nigerian Law Forum, Unilag Law Review)).

Rule of Law

The rule of law encompasses principles such as equality before the law, accountability, separation of powers, transparency, and judicial independence. In Nigeria, public interest litigation is often seen as both reinforcing and challenging this principle by promoting access to justice but also raising concerns about judicial overreach and institutional balance (IP/Law commentary and doctrinal analysis of COPW decision (Nigerian Journals Online)).

Significance in Nigeria’s Socio Political Context

Nigeria is marked by severe socio-economic inequality, inadequate service delivery, environmental degradation, pervasive corruption, and impunity among authorities. In such a context, the right to development becomes critical as a framework for citizens’ demands for basic needs—education, health, sanitation, environment. Public interest litigation emerges as a vehicle for marginalized groups to assert these rights, elevate the rule of law, and press the state toward accountability, despite structural and constitutional limitations.

Thesis Statement

This essay contends that although the right to development remains non justiciable under Nigeria’s domestic Constitution, it is incrementally enforced through public interest litigation grounded in international and regional law. Case law from both Nigerian courts and the ECOWAS Court demonstrates how PIL helps to bolster the rule of law—yet institutional obstacles, weak enforcement, and constitutional constraints continue to limit its transformative potential.

The Right to Development in the Nigerian Context

Origin and Definition under International Law

The right to development was formally recognized by the United Nations in December 1986. Its Preamble frames development as “a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process” aimed at improving well being through inclusive participation and equitable benefit sharing. The African Charter (Article 22) further affirms this right as legally binding for member states, including Nigeria.

Constitutional Silence: Implicit vs. Explicit Recognition

While Nigeria ratified the African Charter and incorporated it domestically through the African Charter Act (2004), its 1999 Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to development. Instead, Chapter II sets out non justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy, which are aspirational statements rather than enforceable rights.

Socio Economic Rights in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution

Chapter II outlines goals such as provision of education, health, housing, and social welfare. However, Section 6(6)(c) explicitly removes jurisdiction of courts over these principles, rendering them unenforceable in litigation.

Justifiability, Debate and Attempts at Enforcement

Despite constitutional limitations, litigants have tried to enforce socio economic rights through clever reliance on international obligations and fundamental rights provisions. The ECOWAS Court, empowered by treaties Nigeria ratified, has been pivotal in bypassing domestic procedural constraints by directly enforcing rights under the African Charter (Justiciability via ECOWAS Court and reliance on African Charter despite domestic silence uncaccoalition.org+3worldcourts.com+3Serap Nigeria+3).

Role of ECOWAS Court Decisions

In SERAP v. Nigeria & UBEC (2010), the ECOWAS Community Court ruled that Nigeria’s failure to provide free and compulsory basic education violated Articles 17 and especially Article 22 of the African Charter, regardless of the domestic non justiciability of educational goals. The Court dismissed Nigeria’s objection that the issue fell under Nigeria’s Chapter II—and reaffirmed its authority to enforce African Charter rights even where municipal law does not confer such rights.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a Tool for Enforcing the Right to Development

Evolution of PIL: From Restrictive Locus Standi to Liberal Interpretation
Historically, Nigerian courts required plaintiffs to demonstrate direct personal injury to have standing. For instance, in the environmental case filed by Centre for Oil Pollution Watch, both the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the suit due to lack of locus standi. But in 2018, the Supreme Court overturned those decisions, liberalizing standing rules to allow NGOs to sue for environmental harm on behalf of affected communities (Ibid).

Landmark Cases Using PIL
• Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2018) became a landmark PIL ruling. The Supreme Court acknowledged environmental degradation as a public interest issue and permitted an NGO to seek remedies on behalf of impacted communities, recognizing the right to life and a healthy environment within Section 33 and Section 20 of the Constitution (ibid).

• SERAP’s action at ECOWAS Court used PIL to demand free basic education. The Court not only recognized the right to education under the African Charter but issued binding orders for the Nigerian government to implement free, compulsory education, underscoring PIL’s potential in enforcing development rights.

PIL and Access to Justice for Marginalized Groups
The liberalization of locus standi enables NGOs and advocacy groups to represent communities otherwise unable to afford litigation. This expansion improves access to justice, especially for rural or marginalized Nigerians facing environmental hazards or educational deprivation.

The Nigerian Judiciary’s Attitude toward Socio-Economic Rights Claims

While constitutional restrictions persist, judicial activism via PIL and international law has gradually induced a more receptive adjudication of socio economic rights. Nonetheless, courts remain constrained; executive non-compliance and weak enforcement mechanisms often undermine the effectiveness of PIL rulings.

Rule of Law: Interplay with Right to Development and PIL

Defining the Rule of Law (Dicey, Constitutionalism, Judicial Independence)
The rule of law, as articulated by A.V. Dicey, has three central tenets: the absolute supremacy of law (no one is punished except for breach of law), equality before the law, and the predominance of legal precedents over discretionary authority. Modern constitutionalism expands this understanding by insisting the state must be bound by law, that individual rights are protected through fair legal procedures, and that courts operate independently in interpreting and enforcing those laws. Judicial independence thus becomes pivotal: judges must be able to decide cases impartially, without undue influence from the executive or legislative branches.

Does PIL Promote or Undermine the Rule of Law?
PIL undoubtedly strengthens several dimensions of the rule of law: it democratizes access to justice, holds government institutions accountable, and enforces compliance with legal and constitutional norms. By broadening locus standi, PIL empowers civil society and marginalized communities to seek remedies—even when formal constitutional channels are blocked. However, critics argue that PIL may lead to judicial activism, where courts make policy decisions or governance choices best left to elected bodies. Such scenarios raise questions about institutional balance and the separation of powers.

Weak Enforcement of Judgments & Executive Non Compliance (Dasuki case)
The Dasuki case underscores the fragility of judicial authority when the executive refuses to comply with court or regional tribunal orders. In 2016, the ECOWAS Court ruled that Col. Sambo Dasuki’s re-arrest and continued detention—despite bail granted by multiple Nigerian courts—was arbitrary, unlawful, and a clear mockery of the rule of law, ordering his immediate release and payment of ₦15 million in damages. Yet successive Nigerian governments ignored these rulings. Multiple Federal High Court judges reaffirmed his bail, but the State Security Service (SSS) refused to release him for several years. In 2024, even the ECOWAS Court itself dismissed Dasuki’s enforcement action, citing procedural technicalities and lack of jurisdiction to compel enforcement, effectively illustrating how executive impunity erodes the rule of law. (SERAP v. Nigeria ECOWAS Court judgment on education – right to development (SERAP / ECOWAS judgments summaries).

Tensions Between Populist Litigation and Strict Legalism
PIL can sometimes generate tension between populist demand for justice and strict adherence to procedural legalism. On one hand, it serves the people by bringing rights-based litigation when formal channels are blocked. On the other, it exposes the judiciary to accusations of overreach or policymaking under legal guise. The Dasuki case reflects how popular sentiment around arbitrary detention can drive litigation, yet harsh procedural rules and political reluctance can frustrate enforcement, leaving legal victories hollow.

CASE STUDIES / EXAMPLES

SERAP v. Federal Government (Mismanagement of Education Budget)

Through public interest litigation, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) challenged the federal government over education fund mismanagement. They petitioned the ECOWAS Court, which held that Nigeria’s failure to provide free and compulsory basic education constituted a breach of the African Charter’s Article 22. The Court ordered systemic reform but enforcement remains partial due to domestic non-compliance and political inertia.
Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Legacy & the Ogoni Nine: Environment as Development Right

The struggle of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni activists underscored environmental exploitation and lack of economic inclusion as key issues of the right to development. Their execution in 1995 galvanized international condemnation and modern Nigerian environmental litigation. The case establishes the link between environmental justice, community development, and public interest legal action against multinational extractive actors—paving the way for later PILs such as COPW v. NNPC. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance” – Ban Ki-moon.