The Oracle
The Oracle: Passport Seizures, Retention, Revocation And Deprivation: Legal And Human Rights Implications (Pt. 3)
Published
1 year agoon
By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
In our last episode, we looked at the requirements of citizenship under the law, taking our cue from Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Chapter III) of the Constitution which recognizes different categories of Nigerian citizenship, namely by birth, naturalisation and registration and their incidents. Today, we shall consider whether Olisa Agbakoba’s case was rightly decided and also whether a passport issued to a citizen by birth can be withdrawn or forfeited. After which we shall take a cursory look at some laws- international and Nigerian laws guiding passport seizure, retention, revocation and deprivation, consider the human and legal implications as well as provide some remedies. Read on please.
Was Agbakoba’s Case Correctly Decided?
This is the million naira question. It can be seen that the apex court in the case affirmed the prerogative of the Minister of Internal Affairs under Section 5 of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to suspend, withhold or revoke the passport of a Nigeria on the ground, inter alia, of national interest. I believe that, to the extent that the Supreme Court did not consider whether that provision was a valid derogation from the fundamental right to freedom of movement within parameters of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Constitution, that decision was given somewhat per incuriam.
I submit that, that right (and its concomitant right to a passport) cannot be derogated from merely on the vague, blanket ground of ‘public interest’ (as provided under Section 5 of the Act) but rather on any one or more (if not all) the grounds specifically set out in the Constitution i.e., in the interest of defence, public or defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting of rights and freedom of other persons. While it can be argued that those grounds are all in the public interest. I believe their specification under the Constitution is to prevent abuse and to check arbitrariness.
I believe that this view would be consistent with the contra-profremtum rule of statutory interpretation which states that any statute which seeks to deprive a person of his proprietary rights must be construed strictly against the law-maker and sympathetically in favour of the citizen whose right is at stake. Such laws should be interpreted narrowly and if their provisions are not strictly observed in any given case, they will be struck down. See FCDA V SULEI (1994)3 NWLR pt. 332 pg 257 per Ogundare, JSC, PROVOST, LACOED V EDUN (2004) LPELR- 2929 (SC) Per Tobi, JSC and THE ADMINISTRATORS & EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA V EKE-SPIFF (2009) LPELR-3152 (SC) PER Aderemi, JSC, at pg 41E-42B.
Can A Passport Issued To A Citizen By Birth Be Withdrawn Or Forfeited?
I believe this question is the most fundamental of all and is at the heart of the debate which is subject of this paper. This is because, if a person’s citizenship by birth can neither be forfeited nor taken away from him or by executive fiat, he or she ought not to be denied or deprived of the symbol of that status by the same or any other means except, of course, by personal choice (i.e., renunciation). In other words, I believe that the question is not so much about the invalidity of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act vis-a vis those of Sections 41 and 45 of the Constitution, (although this is crucial) but rather, of the unconstitutionality of any law which purports to empower any person whatsoever (including the president) to withhold, revoke or withdraw the passport of a citizen of Nigeria by birth on ANY GROUND other than those spelt out in section 45 of the Constitution.
The reason is simple: as stated earlier, if the President cannot deprive a citizen by Birth of his or her citizenship (as he can do in respect of citizens by naturalisation or registration under SECTION 30(1) AND (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION), he should not possess the power to withdraw or withhold the pre-eminent symbol of that status: his passport. If the President, as the CEO of the country (under Section 130 (3) of the Constitution) cannot do that, I believe that neither should any of his subordinates or even appointees (such as the Minister of Internal Affairs) in the manner in which Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act stipulates.
Summary
Nigerian Law
1. Constitutional Rights: The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement (Section 41) and the right to a passport (Section 42).
2. Passport Act: The Passport Act (1961) regulates passport issuance, revocation, and seizure.
3. Immigration Act: The Immigration Act (2015) empowers the Nigeria Immigration Service to seize and revoke passports.
International Law
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 13(2) guarantees the right to leave and return to one’s country.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 12(2) protects the right to freedom of movement.
3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Article 12(1) guarantees the right to freedom of movement.
Human Rights Implications
1. Right to Freedom of Movement: Passport seizures, retention, or revocation can restrict movement, violating this right.
2. Right to Nationality: Deprivation of a passport can lead to statelessness, violating the right to nationality.
3. Right to Family Life: Passport restrictions can separate families, violating the right to family life.
4. Right to Education and Work: Passport restrictions can limit access to education and employment opportunities.
Legal Implications
1. Administrative Justice: Passport seizures or revocation must follow due process, as outlined in the Nigerian Constitution.
2. Judicial Review: Affected individuals can seek judicial review of passport-related decisions.
3. International Obligations: Nigeria must uphold international human rights obligations, including those related to passport rights.
Remedies
1. Judicial Review: Challenge passport seizures or revocation in court.
2. Administrative Appeals: Appeal to relevant authorities, such as the Nigeria Immigration Service.
3. Human Rights Commission: File complaints with the National Human Rights Commission.
4. International Mechanisms: Petition international human rights bodies, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Conclusion
A passport is a symbol of one’s citizenship. It is the pre-eminent marker which identifies its holder as a citizen of a particular country. While you can be a citizen without necessarily holding a passport, you cannot possess a passport unless you are citizen of a country: they are two sides of the same coin.
Our Constitution has covered the field of citizenship, vide Chapter III, Sections 25 to 32 thereof which recognises three categories of citizens by birth, by naturalisation and by registration. While the last two can be taken away by the President under the Constitution, the former cannot.
The Constitution empowers the President (vide Section 32) to make regulations prescribing matters required or necessary for effectuating or carrying out the provisions of that chapter, subject only to one condition: that any such regulation should be laid before the National Assembly. Crucially, there is no role for a Minister or any other person under the Constitution in this regard in terms of conferring or depriving a person of citizenship of Nigeria.
In other words, the Constitution has covered the field. Accordingly, to the extent that the National Assembly purports to empower the Minister of Internal Affairs to withdraw or cancel any passport issued to any person on the ground, inter alia, of public interest (vide Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act), that provision is not only otiose, it is ultra vires, invalid, null and void because it is inconsistent with the aforesaid constitutional provisions which specifically empower only the President to deprive a person of his citizenship. The mere fact that those clauses refer to ‘citizenship’ and not ‘passport’ is irrelevant; as previously submitted, the latter is but evidence of the former: you can’t have the latter without the former.
The power conferred on the Minister of Internal Affairs to revoke or withdraw passports under Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, should, ideally, be conferred on the President. This would be consistent with the spirit and letters of Chapter III of the Constitution which clearly manifests an intention by the framers of the Constitution to confer on the President absolute control of the citizenship ecosystem – including, of course, passports. As the apex court famously held in OSADEBAY V. ATTN-GEN OF BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR Pt. 169 pg. 525, S.C, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, “it cannot be presumed that the framers of the Constitution intended to confer a right with one hand and to take it away with the other”
The Constitution should be construed as a whole and its makers cannot possibly intend to set the President up against his own appointee. The Minister is not a bean-stalk planted by Jack: he cannot outgrow himself. Under the Constitution, only the President can deprive a person of his or her citizenship and then only in two instances: citizenship by naturalisation and citizenship by registration. Not by birth. If otherwise, it would mean that the President’s appointee or agent- the Minister is more powerful than the President, which would not be a travesty, it would be a constitutional aberration.
Once the Constitution has covered a legislative field, no other person, body or authority is permitted to legislate in respect of same subject matter: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2002)6 NWLR PT.763 Pg 264 at 39q per Kutigi and Uwais, JSC and CJN. (The end).
Thought for the week
“As a global community, we face a choice. Do we want migration to be a source of prosperity and international solidarity, or a byword for inhumanity and social friction” (Antonio Guterres).
Related
You may like
The Oracle
The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 3)
Published
14 hours agoon
June 13, 2026By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
For the past two weeks, we have dealt extensively on this treatise. We discussed the following themes:
i. Assault on economic rights in Nigeria under the military juntas;
ii. Social rights;
iii. Cultural rights and
iv. Justiceability or otherwise of economic, social and cultural rights.
This concluding part of the treatise will examine human rights under other relevant international/universal instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Please read on.
OTHER INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSAL INSTRUMENTS
There are various International Instruments that recognize economic, social and cultural rights of people. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, declares that:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.
THE POSITION OF AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES RIGHTS
The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, 1981, also recognizes the position of human rights severally among others, and thus provide for the right to peace, development, satisfactory environment and the right to respect the common heritage of mankind. This is as provided for in Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples rights, which guarantees:
“Freedom, equity, justice and legitimate aspirations of African peoples”
To give effect to these rights, the leaders of the then Organization of African Unity (OAU), now African Union (AU). also reaffirmed the pledge solemnly made in Article 2 of the said Charter, to eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa, to co-ordinate and intensify their co-operation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa and to promote international co-operation having due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights and taking into cognizance, the virtues of their historical tradition and the values of African Civilization, which should inspire and characterized their reflection in the concept of human and people’s rights.
They are also recognized on the one hand, that Fundamental Human Rights stem from attributes of human beings, which justify their international protection; and on the other hand, that the reality and respect of people’s rights should necessarily guarantee human rights. To achieve this, it should be borne in mind that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms also implies the performance of duties on the part of every citizen.
The leaders were convinced that it was essential to pay particular attention to the right to development and that civil and political rights cannot be dissociated from economic, social and cultural rights as a guarantee for such civil and political rights. This position is well encapsulated in Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, which provides that:
i “All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind”
ii “States shall have the duty, individually or collectively to ensure the exercise of the right to development”
Nevertheless, the duty to achieve the total liberation of Africa, the peoples of which are still struggling for their dignity and genuine independence and undertaking to eliminate colonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid, Zionism and to dismantle aggressive foreign military bases and all forms of discrimination, language, religion or political options, were then the major pre-occupation of African leaders. They were firmly convinced of their duty to promote and protect human and people’s rights and freedoms, taking into account the importance traditionally attached to these rights and freedoms in Africa.
It is therefore submitted with respect, that by the provisions of all the international instruments on human rights, man has been significantly elevated to the echelon of a subject of international law beyond municipal or State
CONCLUSION
It is obvious that the economic, social and cultural rights of Nigerians have been violated severally by various successive governments and such violation is encouraged by their non-justiciability by virtue of the provisions of Chapter II the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered. The question thus posed as a result of this ugly trend would be: Does this mean that we should all fold our hands and watch these rights violated? Is there nothing the Nigerian people can do to litigate these rights?
The answer in conscience is that there is much we can do. We must encourage and promote the enforcement of all the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy as they are meant to enhance the living conditions of man. It is noteworthy however, that all international Human Rights Instruments recognize economic, social and cultural rights of the people. Nigeria not being an island unto itself cannot be cocooned in self-defeatism and haplessness. She must move with the civilized world and render ECOSOC rights justiciable and enforceable. It is the duty of Civil Society and every affected citizen to challenge violation of the provisions of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as altered. (The end).
THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK
“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others” – Jonathan Sacks.
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power” – Alexander Hamilton.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 2)
Published
1 week agoon
June 5, 2026By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
The inaugural part of this piece was necessarily foundational: it defined ‘human rights’; ‘economic social and cultural rights’ and also reviewed historical assault on economic rights by military juntas in Nigeria. Today we continue same theme after which we shall delve into social and cultural rights and equally examine their justiciability. Enjoy.
ASSAULT ON ECONOMIC RIGHTS BY MILITARY JUNTAS (continues)
The opaque commercialization and privatization of economic policies that were originally introduced by successive military regimes in Nigeria were later to be fully and absolutely incorporated and implemented in the scheme of things by the Obasanjo administration from 1999-2007. For example, the Obasanjo administration illegally privatized NNPC, NITEL, NEPA, Federal Hotels, strategic public institutions and other public corporations, without necessarily following due process as is required under a constitutional democracy. This privatization and commercialization exercise was done with the ulterior motive of satisfying the whims and caprices of a certain cabal of politicians at the expense of the vast majority of the masses. The commanding heights of our National economy were privatized to friends, relations, school mates, surrogates and lackeys of Government officials and their compradors.
SOCIAL RIGHTS
These include right to quality education, right to security of employment, access to free medical care, right to drink clean pipe-borne water, right to electricity, right to information, right to good roads, right to good shelter and clothing, etc. These are also known as basic social amenities, which are necessarily incidental to decent and reasonable existence. We are already in the 21st century where a serious global campaign is on going for mass literacy. This campaign for good and qualitative education is predicated on the well known truism that education leads to development in all its ramifications.
Has the Nigerian Government done enough in the area of fundamentals of the importance of education? The answer in good conscience is a capital “No”. Since the days of “Ali-must-go protests (1978), education has suffered tremendously as a result of its commercialization, thus making it an exclusive preserve of the rich. The then National union of Nigerian Students (NUNS), under the leadership of late Mr. Segun Oni demonstrated its abhorrence for this and strenuously protested against the commercialization of education by the then Commissioner for Education, Amadu Ali. Unfortunately, however, this noble struggle of Nigeria Students led to indiscriminate shooting, maiming and killing of innocent and harmless students who were essentially the sons and daughters of the poor. All Federal Universities were promptly closed down following the mass protests. These tragedies occurred during the inglorious days of the military dictatorship of Obasanjo. That was perhaps the first time when Nigerian students signposted their determination to assert their inalienable right to education. Till date, education is still in shambles as all successive military and civilian Administrations have done little or nothing to improve it. While the children of the rich and people in Government attend Ivy league schools both locally and in foreign countries, the mass majority of children of the poor receive half-baked education in half completed buildings, without writing or learning materials.
In fact, since the evolution of Nigeria as a country and indeed since the attainment of political independence, no government has sincerely attempted the convocation of an Education Summit where all stakeholders are permitted to contribute intellectually to the production of a blue print for sustainable quality education that will meet our yearnings and aspirations as a rapidly developing African Country. It is an indisputable fact that without quality education, life will be of no avail and consequently, development will be retarded.
Another epochal struggle of the later National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), for improved living standard and conditions in tertiary institutions was the 1990 agitation for the provision of the most basic needs on campuses, essentials such as pipe – borne water, electricity and laboratory equipment just to enhance quality education. The response of the then Babangida Military Junita was a far cry from the legitimate demands of the students. Between March/April, 1990, the Federal Government decided to take an IMF loan of $120m for the Federal Universities and this unilateral and retrogressive decision triggered off violent protests and agitation from the academic community. The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), actively protested against the decision to take loan from the world Bank, essentially because the conditionalities attached thereto would worsen the already crisis – ridden educational situation in the country. Not less than three Federal Universities were closed down following the massive protests that greeted the decision to take the said IMF loan. Some students of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife, were arrested and arraigned before an Ile – Ife Magistrate Court for charges of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. The then Education Minister, Prof. Babs Aliyu Fafunwa, while trying to justify the essence of the loan stated that it was meant for the restoration of the universities, but this explanation was not acceptable to Nigerian Students as well as the Academic Staff Union of Universities, who that knew the loan would further deny Nigerians a right of access to the already collapsed educational system. All these were the by-products of SAP, an anti-people program that was initiated by General Babangida’s Military regime.
CULTURAL RIGHTS
Culture has been defined by Bairamian J. in Lewis vs. Bankole, as a mirror of accepted usage. It is a way of life of people, which has gained acceptance among them over the years. The great sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo of blessed memory, once said that:
“Culture is the tap root of every society and if culture decays, that society will have to develop parasitic features for it to continue to exist”.
Cultural heritage has many aspects. For example, cultural songs and dance, cultural foods, cultural traditional marriage, cultural dresses and festivals. Nigerian’s multi-ethnic groups presuppose the existence of cultural pluralism. This means that as there are many different ethnic groups, so also there are different and diverse cultures in Nigeria. It is therefore necessary to preserve and promote cultural rights among the various ethnic Nationalities in Nigeria, so as to enable Nigerians participate actively in their cultural life. This would also foster our philosophy of national integration and diversity. An examination of the Nigerian Society in the pre-colonial era will reveal how well preserved, promoted and respected our cultural heritage was by all the paramount traditional rulers of the time. For example, the Benin Empire during the reign of Oba Overamwen Nogbaisi earned continental applause as a result of the Oba’s dedication and commitment to the promotion and preservation of the Benin cultural heritage. The Oyo Empire under the Alaafin of Oyo was also feared and respected by all and sundry for its commitment to the preservation of their cultural heritage. The Hausa/Fulani struggled for decades for the preservation and promotion of their cultural heritage. This was copiously acknowledged by all British Colonial Administrators in Nigeria during the colonial era.
JUSTICEABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended made copious provisions for Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Sections 13 – 24 of the constitution are basically on such all important issues and matters like fundamental obligations of the Government, the Government and the people, politics, economic, social, educational, foreign policy, environmental objectives, directives on Nigerian culture, obligations of mass media, National ethnic and duties of the citizens. Section 16 (1) – (4) of the constitution deals essentially with economic objectives, while section 17 (1) – (3) deals with social objectives; and section 21 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides for directives of Nigerian culture.
A cursory look at the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, quickly reveals that the Government, gave these rights and privileges with the left hand, and took them back with the right hand. This is akin to the proverbial Greek gift. It is submitted with respect that, the non-justificiability of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy under the 1999 Constitution appears to be a conspiracy by the state and its preferred minions to deny the Nigerian citizens, particularly the masses, the enjoyment of their well deserved wealth by many public officers and Government functionaries. A careful consideration of the diary of looting in Nigeria will reveal how public officers in connivance with elected political office holders have embezzled and mismanaged public funds meant for provision of infrastructural facilities and other developmental projects. But since the 1999 constitution as imposed by themselves and their military collaborators has prohibited any person from challenging or seeking to enforce the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, the looting or siphoning of public funds will continue with impunity and the perpetrators will always find an escape route. The average Nigerian continues to wallow in abject penury. The recent revelations of looted billions of naira constitute and eye – opener to this tragedy.
We must encourage and promote the enforcement of all the Fundamental Objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy as they are meant to enhance the living standard of all and sundry.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others”. – Jonathan Sacks.
Related
The Oracle
The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 1)
Published
2 weeks agoon
May 29, 2026By
Eric
By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
Generally speaking, economic, social and cultural rights are part and parcel of inalienable human rights with which man is naturally endowed upon birth. In a responsible and ideal society, all the human rights including economic, social and cultural rights are recognized, respected, guaranteed, enforced, implemented and even prompted by all and sundry, the state inclusive. These rights which have been universally recognized are otherwise known as ECOSOC RIGHTS.
However, before discussing in detail, economic, social and cultural rights which constitute the gravamen of this write-up, it is pertinent to deal with terminological issues by attempting to know the meaning of a ‘Right’. What is a “Right”?
DEFINITION OF TERMS
“Right” is a versatile term meaning correct, suitable, or morally proper, as well as indicating the direction opposite to left, or a legal/moral entitlement. It signifies accuracy.
According to Osbornes Law Dictionary of current English, a Right is defined as:
“An interest recognized and protected by the law, respect for which is a duty and disregard of which is wrong”
This definition is on all fours with that of Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition, page 1347) which defines ‘Right’ as:
“That which is proper under the law, morality or ethics. Right also means to know right from wrong, something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle-the right of liberty. A power, privilege, of immunity secured to a person by law -the right to depose of one’s estate. A legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act; the violation of which is a wrong-, a breach of duty infringes one’s right. The interest, claim or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property-a debtor’s rights in collateral-publishing rights. The privilege of corporate shareholders to purchase newly issued securities in amounts proportionate to their holdings. The negotiable certificate granting such a privilege to a corporate shareholder”
A legal scholar, John Chipman Gray, in his book “The Nature and Sources of law, page 8-9 (2d ed. 1921)”, opines that:
“Right is a correlative to duty; where there is no duty there can be no right. But the converse is not necessarily true. There may be duties without rights. In order for a duty to create a right, it must be a duty to act or forbear. Thus, among those duties which have rights, corresponding to them do not come within the duties, if such there be, which call for an inward state of mind, as distinguished from external acts or forbearances. It is only to acts and forbearances that others have a right. It may be our duty to love our neighbor, but he has no right to our love”.
Ordinarily, right means power of free action. It refers, inter alia, to the economic, social and cultural advantages or benefits to which man has a just claim morally, legally and ethically. It is different and distinct from a privilege. From the above definitions only a right recognized and protected by law can be considered as a right; Otherwise, it is just a privilege.
WHAT THEN ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights strictly speaking are those sets of rights referred to as inalienable, which are also specifically and particularly recognized and protected by law. Every human being is naturally endowed with and is entitled to the enjoyment of such rights except by due process of law. They are human because they are fundamental.
Another legal scholar, M. Cranston in his book titled: “Human Rights: Real and Supposed quoted in D/D, Rapheal (ed) Political Theory and the Rights of man (1967) Bloomington, Indian University Press page 52”. Opined that:
“A human right is something of which no one may be deprived without a great affront to justice. These are certain deeds, which should never be done, certain freedoms, which should never be invaded, something’s which are supremely sacred”.
One of the most distinguished jurists ever produced by Nigeria, Kayode Eso JSC, re-affirmed the importance of human rights in RANSOME KUTI V. A-G OF THE FEDERATION (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 211, 230, in the following words:
“it is a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which in fact is antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary condition to a civilized existence… and what has been done by our constitutions…. is to have these rights enshrined in the constitution so that the rights could be “immutable” to the extent of the “non immutability” of the constitution itself”.
From the above definitions of human rights, it is obvious that those rights that are termed fundamental human rights and which are specifically codified in our statutes particularly Chapter IV of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, are not only recognized and protected, but are also enforceable in law courts.
WHAT ARE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS?
These are simply rights that enable man to have a reasonable and decent standard of living in the society. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, every citizen in Nigeria shall be afforded the opportunity to develop his full potentials economically, socially and culturally to the utmost of his ability. Unfortunately, however, the contrary is the case as these rights are not in any enforceable in a court of law. This informs the reason why some countries of the world have codified some fundamental laws regarding the implementation and enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights in their grundnorm, the constitution. The right to a decent living is unarguably a corollary to the right to life. To be saddled with less than decent living standard is to demote human beings to the base level of animals.
ECONOMIC RIGHTS
An Economic right is nothing but the right of man to be gainfully employed in order to share a decent and adequate standard of living in the society. The state is enjoined to ensure the provision of job opportunities to all persons without discrimination on grounds of belief, religion, gender, political and ethnic affiliations. In this respect, it is expected that the Government should provide an enabling economic environment to improve on the living conditions of the citizens. Without this, life, as in the Hobbesian state of nature, would be “short, nasty and brutish”.
ASSAULT ON ECONOMIC RIGHTS BY MILITARY JUNTAS
Unfortunately, the economic rights of many Nigerian citizens have been seriously undermined by successive military and civilian Administrations (See Annual Report on Human Rights in Nigeria, 1990-Civil Liberty Organisation (CLO).). In the locust days of the General Ibrahim Babangida administration, the nationally acclaimed maximum dictator, and self-styled “evil genius”, the Nigerian economy was badly managed and terribly crises-ridden, thus subjecting poor Nigerian citizens to squalor and abject penury. It was during the tenure of this military junta that subsidy in petroleum products was removed and left to the vagaries of international market forces. Nigerians were living from hand to mouth; both the employed and unemployed. Inflation geometrically increased and consequently the poor living conditions of Nigerian citizens became aggravated. All the civil liberties organizations, Student Unions and the Nigerian Labour Congress massively mobilized Nigerians to protest against the military Government policy of removing oil subsidy. This did not in any way deter him. In fact, the protests led to the arrest and incarceration of many human rights and pro-democracy activities. Many died in the struggle.
When the Babangida regime eventually responded to the economic crisis in Nigeria with the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), the implementation of which rather aggravated the living conditions of a vast majority of the citizens who were then living below poverty line, he went scot free. The United Nations Development Project (UNDP) Report on Human Development better captured this sorry state to which Nigerians were subjected by the Ibrahim Babangida regime in its report which scored Nigeria 0.322 out of a maximum Human Development Index of (HD10 1.0). That report automatically placed our country last in terms of citizen’s access to resources needed for a decent standard of living, literally levels and average life expectancy in a given country. The value of Naira also experienced a monumental decline or downward slide vis-à-vis the dollar and other international currencies under the Second Tier Foreign Exchange Market (SFEM).
Another negative effect of SAP to Nigerians was the massive loss of employment as many Nigerian workers of various levels were laid off. It was reliably reported that not less than 10, 000 junior workers of Julius Berger Construction Company in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT), were unlawfully dismissed simply because they embarked on a strike action to demand for better working conditions. This further worsened the alarming abject poverty in the country.
With the advent of Democracy in Nigeria in 1999, (one would have expected an aggressive and radical transformation of the economy in such a way that adequate job opportunities would be created to quickly arrest the alarming hunger and poverty that had ravaged the Nigerian masses). Unfortunately, the civilian administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo did nothing practical to ameliorate the deplorable living conditions in Nigeria. Instead, his administration introduced social and economic policies that were not only strangulating in nature, but exclusively impoverished the Nigerian masses who started living like “walking corpses”, as Ayi Kwei Ama once posited, in his book, “The Beautiful Ones Are Not Yet Born”. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual”. (Thomas Jefferson).
Related


Democracy and Prosperity of Nigerian Citizenry: Foundations for Deciding a Fruitful Future
‘He Died a Natural Death’ – Katsina Govt Announces Death of Gen Rabe Abubakar in Kidnappers’ Captivity
GLO and the Democratization of Communication in Nigeria
Adding Value: The Power in a Name by Henry Ukazu
Tech and Humanity: Africa is Building the Future of AI; The Question is Who Will It Serve?
The Oracle: Understanding the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nigerians (Pt. 3)
Sowore ‘Slumps’ Amid Police Teargas During Abuja Protest
All White Service of Songs As Celebrities Bid Alex Ekubo Farewell
Lessons from 2019, 2023 Elections: Why Atiku Abubakar Needs Dele Momodu As Running Mate
UBA Foundation Marks World Environment Day 2026 with Tree-Planting Initiative
The Dark Link Between the Forest Cartels and the Ballot
Why Dele Momodu May Be Atiku’s Smartest Running Mate Option Yet
When Architecture of Policy Meets Architecture of Connection
Tech and Humanity: The Long Walk to School
Trending
-
Entertainment2 days agoAll White Service of Songs As Celebrities Bid Alex Ekubo Farewell
-
Opinion6 days agoLessons from 2019, 2023 Elections: Why Atiku Abubakar Needs Dele Momodu As Running Mate
-
Business5 days agoUBA Foundation Marks World Environment Day 2026 with Tree-Planting Initiative
-
Opinion6 days agoThe Dark Link Between the Forest Cartels and the Ballot
-
Opinion4 days agoWhy Dele Momodu May Be Atiku’s Smartest Running Mate Option Yet
-
Opinion4 days agoWhen Architecture of Policy Meets Architecture of Connection
-
Tech and Humanity6 days agoTech and Humanity: The Long Walk to School
-
Opinion5 days agoThe Bridge Nigeria Needs: Reflections on Leadership, National Unity, and the Ati-Dele Conversation

