Connect with us

The Oracle

The Oracle: President Tinubu Cannot Legally Remove an Elected Governor of a State

Published

1 year ago

on

By Prof Mike Ozekhomo SAN

INTRODUCTION

In an era where democracy is supposed to reign supreme giving democracy dividends to beleaguered Nigerians, the nation has once again found itself at crossroads, a sober moment of reckoning where constitutional order is being tested in the most brazen of ways. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sworn to uphold the Constitution, has taken a most unprecedented and unlawful step: the suspension of a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor and an entire State House of Assembly under the thin guise of emergency rule. What emergency? Nigerians and Rivers people did not see or feel any such emergency.

Let me be very firm most categorically and unequivocally that no constitutional provision, statute or any known convention grants the President the imperial and dictatorial authority to single-handedly dissolve the structures of an elected state government. That may probably have been in the locust days of military juntas; but Nigeria is today not under the firm grip of a military dictatorship.

The last time I checked, she is supposed to governed under a constitutional democracy that operates a presidential and republican form of government. The emergency provisions under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution exist to restore order only in times of grave national crisis; certainly not to topple duly elected state officials. Lois X1V of France as an absolute dictator could not have done better and would therefore green with envy from his cold grave, having on 13th April, 1655, stood in front of parliament and imperiously exuded, “L’Etat C’est Moi” (“I am the State”).

A state of emergency does not and cannot translate to a civilian coup d’état, executed by executive fiat through a national broadcast which torpedoed elected structures and whimsically imposed a sole Administrator who would now illegally receive Rivers State allocations from the Federation account under section 162 of the Constitution contrary to the very judgement of the Supreme Court which President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pretended to be executing.

We have seen this script play out before during the infamous 2004 Plateau State emergency, where former President Obasanjo suspended Governor Dariye in what was widely condemned as a travesty of constitutional governance. Then, as now, the excuse was “exceptional circumstances”; but the reality was nothing short of executive lawlessness and overreach masked as national interest. I had criticized it in the same way I also criticized those of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.

And now, as Rivers State stands at the centre of this unfolding simulated constitutional debacle, one must ask: Is this the signal of a dangerous precedent for and kite-flying to Nigeria, of a looming maximum dictatorship in the offing in a one-party State? Will other “erring” Governors who refuse to align with the central government be next in line? Are we witnessing the return of a dangerous era of impunity where emergency rule becomes the bludgeon of political control rather than a tool for stability?

Let me be very clear about this for historical purposes: President Tinubu clearly lacks the power, authority and vires to suspend democratic structures, especially the removal of Governor Sim Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly members. His act constitutes nothing but a gross constitutional aberration and a most illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconscionable step that has the potential of imploding Nigeria at large and Rivers State in particular. The Constitution must stand hallowed, unassaulted, or democracy will fall and perish. Although time shall tell, but time is certainly not on our side.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, at page 379, defines “Declaration” as an official or formal statement, especially about the plans of a Government or an organization; the act of making such a statement.

Declaration or proclamation of a state of emergency therefore means proclaiming or making known a situation of emergency. What does “emergency” itself mean?
Emergency Doctrine is variously referred to as “emergency”, “imminent peril” or “sudden peril” Doctrine [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 523).

A “state of emergency” is defined in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (P.1620) as “when a government gives itself special powers in order to try to control an unusually difficult or dangerous situation, especially when this involves limiting people’s freedom”. “Emergency powers” are such powers as are conferred on a Government during such an unusual situation to hold the state together.

The Constitution in Section 305, of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered (the organic law and grund norm of the land) embraces three adjuncts of a declaration of a state of emergency: (1) Reasons for proclaiming it; (2) How it is proclaimed; (3) How it can be halted both before and after its proclamation. It also envisages two types of State of Emergency: (i) By Mr. President under Section 305 (3) (a) and (b), when the Federation is at War; or the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war. (ii) The scenario where it is the Governor of a State who personally calls for the state of emergency under situations envisaged in Section 305 (3) (c), (d) and (e). This occurs where the threat does not extend beyond the boundaries of the State.

Section 305 of the 199 Constitution, as altered, provides:

1) “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.

2) The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.”

None of the factors envisaged in Section 305 of the Constitution has occurred at all to warrant the steps taken by the president. In present scenario the bi-camera National Assembly had not even first met, discussed and approved the president’s emergency proposals before he acted. He did it in advance (in futuro) in expectation of rubber-stamping by a pliable and malleable NASS.

I hereby call on the NASS to show class for once by roundly rejecting the President’s unconstitutional act of first declaring a state of emergency before its approval and also for acting altra vires by accompanying it with the suspension of elected democratic structures. This will place them on the right path of history. Otherwise, they should be prepared to be damnified by history.

I must emphasize that the declaration of a state of emergency does not translate into a dissolution of governance structures within the affected state. Under a state of emergency, the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, remains in office, whilst the institutions of government at the state level continue to function, unless expressly provided otherwise by law. There is no such law in Rivers State or at the national level.

The framers of the 1999 Constitution were deliberate in ensuring that the power to declare a state of emergency is not an avenue for executive overreach or imperious excursion into the realm of narcissm or ego trip. While the President may take extraordinary measures to maintain peace and order, those measures must align with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no provision howsoever, express or implied, that allowed President Tinubu to remove a sitting Governor and state House of Assembly legislators under the thin guise of emergency powers. There is no war in Nigeria. There is no threat of external aggression or invasion either across the country or in Rivers State. All that we have seen have been tussle for power between the Governor and the House of Assembly and the courts had already waded in with the Governor declaring he would comply with the Supreme Court’s judgement. A mere blow up of oil pipes in two communities by unidentified persons certainly does not constitute a war or external invasion situation.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION of POWERS AND FEDERALISM

Nigeria operates a federal system of government, which means that power is divided and shared between the federal, state and Local Government Areas. This structure is designed to prevent excessive concentration of power in any one level of government, for as Lord Acton once explained, “power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The President’s authority over the states is limited, just as a Governor cannot interfere with presidential functions at the federal level.

Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy as ablly propounded in 1748 by a great French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, ensures that no single branch of government has unchecked authority. The removal of a Governor is a matter strictly within the purview of the State House of Assembly, as stipulated under Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is quite detailed, lengthy and rigorous; and requires a legislative super majority to accomplish. It is not a power and prerogative the President can usurp and exercise as did President Tinubu, regardless of the circumstances.

CAN THE PRESIDENT SUSPEND OR REMOVE A SITTING GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, OR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY EVEN UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY?

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture in its democratic evolution. Recent developments in Rivers State, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu purportedly suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the entire House of Assembly, call for a meticulous constitutional examination and analysis. At the heart of this matter lies an age-old question: Can the President, under the guise of emergency rule, lawfully suspend or remove a democratically elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or Legislature?

The answer, based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents and the very principles of federalism which we operate, is an unequivocal NO. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) does not, under any circumstance, empower the President to remove, suspend, or torpedo duly elected state officials even under Section 305, which governs the declaration of a state of emergency.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EMERGENCY POWERS

In no place does Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution grant the President the power to suspend a Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. This reality is backed by constitutional jurisprudence and was reaffirmed in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 265, where the Supreme Court clarified that the Constitution is supreme and that no authority including the President can act outside its provisions.

Yet, this is not the first time that Nigeria has witnessed an outright abuse of emergency powers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2004 suspension of Plateau State’s Governor Joshua Dariye and the House of Assembly remains a painful reminder of how emergency provisions have been misused to subvert democratic structures.

That unconstitutional precedent, which many Nigerians condemned then as executive overreach reminiscent of military juntas, appears to have resurfaced in Rivers State where President Tinubu’s action has eerily followed that same better-forgotten pattern, with the Judiciary left untouched as a token concession to constitutionalism. But can democracy survive when two out of the three arms of government are arbitrarily dissolved? I believe not.

FEDERALISM, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Nigeria operates a federal system, meaning that power is distributed between the central and state governments, as explicitly outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 11 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this system, a Governor is not an apron string of or mere extension of the Presidency. He is an independently elected authority answerable to no one but only the people of his state who elected him.

The Constitution does not permit a President to unilaterally whimsically and arbitrarily remove a Governor—not by fiat; not by emergency decree; and certainly not by mere executive pronouncement. The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental pillar of democracy, dictates that such removals must be carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.

This principle was reinforced in Attorney-General of Ogun State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 583, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally impose duties or restrictions on state officials. This means that even if a state of emergency is lawfully declared, the Governor remains in office unless impeached through due process.
The Constitution provides only one legal pathway for the removal of a state Governor, and that is through impeachment, as stipulated in Section 188 of the Constitution. The process is legislative, not executive, requiring a State House of Assembly to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings as dictated by the Constitution. In any event, the Rivers State House of Assembly (whether rightly or wrongly) had already commenced one against the Governor. Why truncate the constitutional process through an unconstitutional executive fiat? Why? Why?? Why???

THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT AND THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL CONTROL

Some have sought, in most illogical and unscholarly manner, to justify the President’s emergency intervention in Rivers State under the masquerade and facade of maintaining public safety. They cite the Public Order Act, which grants state Governors powers over public assemblies, meetings, and processions. However, even this statute does not authorize the suspension of an entire government structure.

The irony, of course, is that while Governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states, they lack actual control over security forces. Section 215 of the Constitution subordinates a State Commissioner of Police to the Inspector General of Police and the President, meaning that even if Rivers State were experiencing insecurity, it was ultimately to the same traducing Federal Government it would have turned to.

The absurdity of this power imbalance, even though Rivers State had not gotten there, was noted in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264, where the Court observed that the Federal Government cannot pass the blame for state security failures to a Governor who lacks the constitutional means to deploy security personnel.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: A CONSTITUTIONAL FIREWALL?

Even if the National Assembly, sought to legislate on emergency rule, section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly prohibits it from removing a Governor or Deputy Governor. This means that not only does the President lack the power, but even the National Assembly itself is equally barred from such unconstitutional act.
Prof. Ben Nwabueze, one of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional scholars, had long warned that allowing a President to wield unchecked emergency powers would erode democracy and lead to an authoritarian system where Governors served as vassals at the pleasure of the President rather than the electorate.

In line with this reasoning, Chief F.R.A. Williams had condemned the Plateau State emergency declaration as “a contradiction of all known principles of true federation operating in a democratic society.” Are we not now witnessing history repeat itself in Rivers State?

THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

One of the most fundamental principles of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Sections 4 and 5 of the 1999 Constitution donate specific executive and legislative powers; but nowhere do they mention any inherent powers allowing the President to remove Governors undemocratically.

This principle was applied in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 187, where the Supreme Court held that powers not expressly granted by the Constitution cannot be assumed. Thus, any claim that the President possesses inherent emergency powers to remove a supposedly erring Governor is legally baseless. The President can not dorn the garb of a Primary School headmaster who has absolute control over and supervises his pupils.

HOW A GOVERNOR MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE

If Not the President, then who can remove a Governor under emergency rule? The answer remains the State House of Assembly as the only body constitutionally empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings against an erring Governor.

Under Section 188, impeachment is a rigorous and multi-step process, requiring:

a. A written notice signed by at least one-third of Assembly members;
b. A two-thirds majority vote to proceed further;
c. The formation of an investigative panel by the state Chief Judge;
d. A full blown hearing granting the Governor a right to defence either by himself or through a counsel of his choice;
e. A final two-thirds majority vote for removal after thorough hearing, recommendations, etc.

If a Governor remains in office, it is because the State House of Assembly has not found legal grounds for removal. The President’s personal opinions, political considerations, or security concerns do not change this constitutional scenario.

ANY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR RIVERS STATE?

The declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brings Nigeria into another moment of constitutional crisis and democratic reckoning. While this may appear to be a novel occurrence, history reminds us that this is not the first time a Nigerian President had wielded emergency powers in a manner that undermined the very essence of democracy.

Emergency rule in Nigeria has precedents, but each instance had always been marred by legal controversy, constitutional breaches and political opportunism. The most striking parallel to Tinubu’s action in Rivers State can be drawn from the 2004 Plateau State emergency declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In that case, Obasanjo had suspended the Governor and the State House of Assembly, replacing them with a Sole Administrator, Major-General Chris Alli (Rtd.). That action was roundly criticized as an overreach of executive power, much like what is unfolding today in Rivers State. I was one of the critics.

However, even further back in Nigeria’s history, the Western Region crisis of 1962 under the First Republic presents another instructive example. Under the 1960 Independence Constitution, the then Governor-General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, had declared a state of emergency in the Western Region due to political turmoil. Balewa had removed the Premier, the Governor, all Ministers, and members of the Regional Assembly, installing Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator.

The striking difference, however, is that this took place under a Westminster parliamentary system, where Parliament held sovereignty. In contrast, Nigeria’s current presidential system operates under constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. The framers of the 1999 Constitution deliberately excluded any provision that would allow such sweeping executive powers, particularly those that could enable a President to remove a sitting Governor or dissolve a State House of Assembly under emergency rule.

WHY TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE IS UNPRECEDENTED

Even within the history of emergency rule declarations, Tinubu’s action in Rivers State is particularly alarming. While previous Presidents who declared emergency rule (Balewa in 1962 and Obasanjo in 2004) did so under questionable legal interpretations, they at least had some statutory backing, however flimsy.

Tinubu, on the other hand, has no legal foundation whatsoever to suspend an elected Governor, Deputy Governor, or the State House of Assembly. There is no enabling law, no precedent under the 1999 Constitution, and no Supreme Court ruling that grants the President such sweeping powers.

The 1999 Constitution, as amended, is as clear as a whistle that section 305 which grants the President powers to declare a state of emergency does not provide for the removal or suspension of an elected Governor.

Section 11(4) explicitly denies even the National Assembly the power to remove a Governor under emergency rule; meaning it certainly cannot authorize the President to do so.

The principle of federalism, which underpins Nigeria’s governance structure, dictates that Governors derive their mandate directly from the people and not from the President.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS PRECEDENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND?

One of the most dangerous aspects of President Tinubu’s action is the precedent it sets for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If a President can wake up one morning and, under the guise of an emergency, remove a Governor and dissolve the State Legislature, what prevents the same President or future Presidents from doing the same in other states?

In fact, if the logic of this unconstitutional action is stretched further, it raises an even more disturbing possibility:

What if a President wakes up tomorrow and declares an emergency in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? The Constitution recognizes the FCT as a state.

Could the President then suspend the Senate and the House of Representatives that supervise the FCT and appoint himself as Sole Administrator of the FCT and Federal Republic of Nigeria?

These hypothetical scenarios, once dismissed as absurd, in my earlier research have now become real threats when constitutional violations are left unchallenged and unchecked.

PRESIDENT TINUBU’S ATTEMPT TO RELY ON NON EXISTENT EMERGENCY LAWS

To compound the legal crisis, Tinubu’s government seeks to justify its actions by invoking emergency regulations that do not exist in Nigeria’s current legal framework. The 1961 Emergency Powers Act, which was made pursuant to Section 65(1) of the 1960 Constitution, is no longer in force. That law had allowed the Governor-General to make sweeping regulations, including appointing an Administrator, restricting fundamental rights, and even suspending state governments.

However, this law ceased to have effect long ago. When Nigeria transitioned from the Westminster system to the presidential system in 1979, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any provision that could allow such broad emergency powers.

The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, provide a clear confirmation: the 1961 Emergency Powers Act is described as “omitted; spent”. This means that it has since been consigned to the vehicle of historical oblivion and cannot be resurrected to justify Tinubu’s current unconstitutional acts.

A CLOSING CAVEAT: THE PERILOUS PRECEDENT OF TINUBU’S EMERGENCY RULE IN RIVERS STATE

Not a few Nigerians have argued quite plausibly, too, that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his Deputy, and the State House of Assembly was not purely a matter of law and order, but an act driven by political expediency and personal indignation.

The President finds himself presiding over a nation teetering on the brink economic hardship, rising insecurity, public angst, and deep-seated political fractures. Yet, rather than confront these crises headlong with statesmanship, his administration appears to be flexing emergency powers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers. If Rivers State warranted emergency rule, why then have states like Zamfara and Niger where armed bandits and insurgents have reduced governance to an afterthought not received the same treatment?

Even the most ardent defenders of Tinubu’s emergency Decree ( for a Decree it is in reality) must pause and ask: Is Rivers State the greatest threat to national stability, or is it merely the most convenient political battleground? If emergency rule in Rivers was truly about law and order, why was a hand-picked Administrator imposed while duly elected officials were unceremoniously suspended from office? Is this about democratic governance, or is it about power and control?

If Nigeria remains a constitutional democracy, then the same Constitution must apply to all, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. If Tinubu’s draconian action in Rivers State is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where emergency powers become a tool for political suppression and repression rather than a last resort for genuine intractable crises.

So, the question remains: Is this the Nigeria we want or deserve? Or shall we, in our studied silence, watch democracy dismantled piecemeal with one emergency declaration at a time? History will surely judge us all.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Oracle

The Oracle: Human Rights: Our Everyday Essentials (Pt. 3)

Published

4 days ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN
INTRODUCTION
The last installment of this treatise dealt with human rights vis-à-vis the Nigerian legal system focusing on its challenges as well as civic responsibility and the power of citizen action. This week, I shall make some recommendations for advancing the cause of human rights both globally and locally. Read along.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADVANCING HUMAN RIGHTS GLOBALLY AND LOCALLY
To make human rights truly universal and effective, bold reforms and consistent actions are needed at multiple levels from international institutions and national governments to grassroots communities. While the Nigerian case offers a powerful lens through which to explore these challenges, the recommendations that follow apply broadly across nations, particularly in the Global South, where rights are often written into law but not always realized in daily life.
1. Constitutional and Legal Reforms
Globally, many constitutions contain robust declarations of rights. However, a major gap persists between civil-political rights (like voting or freedom of speech) and economic, social, and cultural rights (like access to healthcare or education). Countries should work toward constitutional and legislative reforms that make these socioeconomic rights justiciable that is, enforceable in courts. In places like South Africa and Kenya, courts have already ruled in favour of health and housing as legal rights. More nations must follow suit.
In Nigeria, this means amending Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution to give full legal weight to the right to education, food, and shelter rights which are currently considered non-binding policy goals.
2. Strengthening Independent Institutions
The protection of rights depends heavily on independent institutions courts, ombudsmen, electoral commissions, and national human rights commissions. These bodies must be free from political interference, well-funded, and given real enforcement powers. The National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, for example, should not merely issue reports but have powers to prosecute or initiate actions against violators, similar to mechanisms in Ghana, South Africa, and Canada.
3. Global Solidarity and Enforcement
International human rights bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and International Criminal Court (ICC) must play a firmer role in holding governments accountable. Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR), treaty body reports, and sanctions against violators must be used consistently not selectively. Global responses to conflicts in Syria, Sudan, Palestine, and Ukraine demonstrate that political interests often distort enforcement. A truly just world must prioritize humanity over geopolitics.
4. Civic Education and Democratic Participation
At both global and national levels, citizens must be educated to recognize, claim, and defend their rights. Civic education must be mainstreamed in schools and public discourse not as propaganda, but as empowerment. Citizens across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have often led the charge against injustice, from the Arab Spring to Nigeria’s #EndSARS movement. These efforts must be sustained by informed participation in elections, peaceful protest, and legal action.
5. Technology, Access, and Digital Rights
In our digital age, human rights must evolve to include the right to digital freedom, data privacy, and access to the internet. In countries like Iran, China, and even democratic settings, internet shutdowns and surveillance have been used to silence dissent. Legal frameworks must protect citizens’ online freedoms while also holding tech companies accountable for hate speech, misinformation, and algorithmic discrimination.
6. Economic Justice and Inclusion
Finally, poverty remains the greatest threat to human rights globally. Over 700 million people worldwide still live in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank. Human rights advocacy must align with inclusive economic policies fair taxation, anti-corruption, social safety nets, and access to basic services. Without these, freedom of expression means little to someone without food or shelter.
CONCLUSION
Human rights are not just international ideals. They are the soul of our everyday existence. They define how we speak, worship, live, and die and the late South African President, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela would say: “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”. For every child kept out of school, every woman denied justice, every protester silenced, and every poor person ignored, a part of our shared humanity is lost.
Nigeria diverse, dynamic, and determined has all it takes to be a beacon of rights in Africa. But it must close the gap between law and life, between words and will. Our constitution, treaties, and institutions must reflect not just power, but compassion.
We are all stakeholders in the human rights movement lawyers and teachers, market women and tech founders, students and traditional leaders. A just society begins not in distant courts, but in the decisions we make daily: to speak up, to listen and to treat each person with dignity.
Human rights are not extras. They are essentials. And they are not the work of others, they are the work of us all. (The end).
THOUGHTS FOR THE WEEK
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. – Nelson Mandela.
“Human rights are not a privilege granted by the few, they are a liberty entitled to all, and human rights, by definition, include the rights of all humans, those in the dawn of life, the dusk of life, or the shadows of life”. – Kay Granger.

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: Human Rights: Our Everyday Essential Pt.2

Published

2 weeks ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

By Prof Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural installment of this piece was necessarily foundational. It examined the origins and evolution of human rights, followed by an analysis of Nigeria and the global human rights crisis. Today, we shall access human rights under the Nigerian legal system and its challenges. We shall also consider the role of civic responsibility and the power of civic action in the realization and enforcement of human rights. Enjoy.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM: LAW, COURTS, AND CHALLENGES

In any democracy, the law is the last line of defense for human dignity. In Nigeria, this role is legally assigned to the Constitution, the courts, and the justice system at large. Yet, the relationship between human rights and the Nigerian legal system is marked by both promise and paradox. While the law outlines strong rights protections, enforcement is often undermined by weak institutions, executive interference, corruption, and limited access to justice for ordinary citizens.

At the heart of Nigeria’s legal structure is the 1999 Constitution, which dedicates Chapter IV to Fundamental Human Rights. These include the right to life (Section 33), dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), private life (Section 37), freedom of expression (Section 39), and movement (Section 41), among others. These provisions, in theory, place Nigeria in alignment with international human rights standards.

Nigeria is also a party to several key international and regional human rights treaties, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Under Section 12 of the Constitution, however, no international treaty is binding unless it is domesticated by the National Assembly ((1) No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly).

This creates a gap between Nigeria’s global commitments and local enforcement.
The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting and enforcing these rights. The Nigerian court system, headed by the Supreme Court, has constitutional authority to safeguard rights and check executive overreach. In several landmark cases, the courts have acted to affirm the rule of law. One example is the case of ABACHA & ORS v. FAWEHINMI ((2000) LPELR-14(SC)) where the supreme court of Nigeria opined as follows:

“Suffice it to say that an international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. See Section 12(1) of the 1979 Constitution which provides: “12(1) No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly (AFRC).”
Another important case is ABACHA v. STATE ((2002) LPELR-15(SC).), where the supreme court yet again Per SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC submitted thus:

“…It must be made quite clear that everyone is entitled to be offered access to good medical care whether he is being tried for a crime or had been convicted or simply in detention. When in detention or custody, the responsibility of affording him access to proper medical facility rests with those in whose custody he is, invariably the Authorities.”

Similarly, in Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 708 ), the Court of Appeal laid down the test for determining violations of fundamental rights, giving legal clarity to human rights litigation in Nigeria.

Despite these rulings, the effectiveness of the courts in protecting rights remains uneven. One major challenge is executive non-compliance with court orders.
Corruption also plagues the system.

According to a 2017 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics, the judiciary ranked among the institutions most prone to bribery (UNODC, ‘Corruption in Nigeria Bribery: public experience and response’ <https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Nigeria/Corruption_Nigeria_2017_07_31_web.pdf> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). Delay in trials, frequent adjournments, and politicized judgement further weaken the system’s credibility.

Access to justice is another major concern. Many Nigerians, especially in rural areas, cannot afford legal representation. Although the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACoN) was established to provide free legal services to indigent citizens, it is grossly underfunded and lacks reach. As a result, many rights violations go unchallenged, particularly for the poor, women, and detainees.

Even when legal provisions exist, enforcement agencies such as the Nigeria Police Force, Nigerian Correctional Service, and other security bodies often lack human rights training and operate with impunity. The #EndSARS Judicial Panels of Inquiry revealed systemic abuses by law enforcement, including illegal arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings (Bonnievolo E Ecoma, ‘A post-mortem assessment of the #EndSARS protest and police brutality in Nigeria’ (2023) AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL 23.).

Although recommendations were submitted, implementation has been weak, and few officers have been held accountable.

Nevertheless, there are signs of progress. Public interest litigation is increasing, driven by civil society organizations such as SERAP, Access to Justice, and the Human Rights Advancement and Development Centre (HURILAWS). More lawyers are offering pro bono services, and digital tools are emerging to track rights violations.
In summary, Nigeria’s legal system contains many of the right tools on paper to protect human rights. However, institutional weakness, political interference, and limited access continue to undermine enforcement. For the courts to truly defend citizens’ rights, judicial independence must be strengthened, corruption rooted out, and access to legal remedies expanded. The law must not only speak, it must work.

CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND THE POWER OF CITIZEN ACTION

The idea of human rights often evokes images of courtrooms, politicians, and legal documents. Yet, history shows that the most profound human rights transformations have been sparked not in parliaments, but in public squares, classrooms, social movements, and the daily courage of ordinary people. While laws can protect rights, only citizens can enforce their spirit through vigilance, advocacy, and civic participation.

In Nigeria, civic responsibility, the active participation of citizens in public life has always been a force for change. From the anti-colonial resistance led by nationalists like Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, and Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, to modern day protests and community actions, Nigerians have continually demonstrated that the power to shape a just society lies in the hands of its people.

A defining moment in Nigeria’s contemporary civic movement was the #EndSARS protest of 20th October, 2020 (Silas Udenze, ‘Though Episodic: The Retrospective-Prospective Nigeria’s EndSARS Protest Anniversaries and Its Peculiarities’ (2025) Sage Journals 60 (3).). Sparked by years of (SARS), Nigerian youths took to the streets in a coordinated, peaceful movement. It was spontaneous, decentralized, and largely organized through social media (ibid). The protest became a symbol of democratic expression, civic courage, and youth led advocacy. Though it was met with repression including the tragic Lekki Toll Gate shooting it awakened a generation to the reality that rights are not guaranteed unless they are defended (ibid).

This awakening unveils a vital truth: citizens are not passive beneficiaries of human rights, they are its primary defenders. A vigilant population, one that knows its rights and demands accountability, becomes the most effective check on power. Yet civic responsibility is not just about protests. It includes voting, holding public officials accountable, reporting abuses, teaching others, volunteering, and refusing to normalize injustice.

Unfortunately, civic engagement in Nigeria is constrained by several factors. Fear of retaliation, misinformation, poverty, and lack of civic education have discouraged many from active participation. According to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over 93 million Nigerians registered to vote in 2023, yet actual turnout was barely 27% (Adebayo Folorunsho-Francis, ‘2023 voter turnout hits 44-year-low, drops to 27%’ Punch News <https://punchng.com/2023-voter-turnout-hits-44-year-low-drops-to-27/> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). This indicates a disconnect between legal rights and civic consciousness.

Furthermore, the suppression of dissent through arrests, censorship, and intimidation continues to weaken democratic space. Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists have been harassed, detained, or labeled “enemies of the state.” The Protection of Whistleblowers Bill, though proposed, has yet to be passed, leaving courageous citizens vulnerable.

The solution lies in mass civic education.

Citizens cannot defend rights they do not understand. The reintroduction of civic education in schools, community-led rights awareness campaigns, and social media activism can all strengthen the public’s capacity to engage. Civil society organizations like BudgIT, EiE Nigeria (Enough is Enough), SERAP, and Connected Development (CODE) have played pivotal roles in this space, using technology, data, and storytelling to empower citizens.
Religious and traditional leaders also have a responsibility. Their influence can either reinforce harmful customs or serve as platforms for peace, justice, and human dignity. When they speak out against discrimination, corruption, and violence, they help bridge the gap between law and lived experience.

Even simple acts like recording a rights violation, signing a petition, or educating a neighbour can ripple into systemic change. The lesson from successful movements is that change begins at the grassroots, grows with knowledge, and triumphs with collective will.

In the end, no constitution or law can replace the will of an informed and active citizenry. When people take ownership of their society, when they refuse silence in the face of injustice, human rights stop being abstract and become a lived reality. The journey to a just Nigeria depends not only on courts and parliaments, but on people who care enough to act. To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. – Nelson Mandela.

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: Human Rights: Our Everyday Essentials (Pt. 1)

Published

2 weeks ago

on

April 11, 2026

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that belong to every person by virtue of their humanity. They are not favour to be granted by governments, nor luxuries to be afforded by wealth, but guarantees essential for dignity, justice, and peace. They follow us into classrooms, marketplaces, courts, homes, voting booths, and hospitals. They are embedded in our everyday lives often unnoticed until they are violated.

Yet, across the world today and particularly in Nigeria these rights are under pressure. Millions are deprived of quality education, clean water, fair trials, and safety from violence. Inequalities persist across gender, ethnicity, ability, and economic status. Authoritarian tendencies are growing. Youths are rising to protest brutality. Women are demanding equality. Minorities are seeking inclusion. Human rights, once considered universal, are increasingly contested.

We shall take a deep dive into the current state of human rights, globally and locally, with a sharp focus on Nigeria’s complex terrain. It begins by tracing the historical evolution of rights, then explores the challenges of our age from digital surveillance to climate displacement and highlights the voices of the marginalized. We will also examine the legal and institutional mechanisms of enforcement and end with a call to collective action to build a just, inclusive, and equitable world.

THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights did not appear suddenly in history. They evolved through centuries of philosophical thought, political revolutions, social struggles, and legal innovations. They were shaped by ancient traditions, redefined through war and rebellion, and finally enshrined into the legal frameworks that now govern modern societies. To understand why they are so essential today, we must trace their origins.

Though the modern language of “human rights” emerged in the 20th century, the quest for dignity and justice is as old as civilization (Sheeba Malik, ‘Evolution of Human Rights from Ancient Times till 20th). Early African societies had customary laws that emphasized communal welfare and fairness. Ancient Egyptian law promoted justice (Ma’at), while Yoruba traditional systems emphasized collective responsibility and moral order (Emmanuel J. Udokang, ‘Traditional Ethics and Social Order: A Study in African Philosophy’ (2014) Cross-Cultural Communication 10 (6)).

One of the earliest landmarks in the journey toward human rights was the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by King John of England under pressure from rebellious barons (Britannica, ‘Magna Carta’ <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). At the time, kings ruled with near absolute authority. The Magna Carta was revolutionary because it introduced the idea that even the monarch was subject to the law. Though its original intent was to protect the privileges of the English nobility, it contained principles that would echo through history. Clause 39 of the document states:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

This was the seed of the concept of due process, the idea that justice must follow legal procedures and not be based on arbitrary power. Over time, the Magna Carta inspired later legal developments such as habeas corpus (the right to challenge unlawful detention), and even modern constitutions (Chertsey Museum, ‘Magna Carta: Freedom under Law’ <https://chertseymuseum.org/magna_carta> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). In essence, it was one of the first formal rejections of unchecked authority.

Centuries later, in 1789, the French Revolution gave rise to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen), another cornerstone of modern human rights thought (Yale Law School Library, ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789’ <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, and influenced by the American Declaration of Independence (1776), this document was a powerful assertion that rights belonged not just to nobles or monarchs, but to all citizens. It declared, in Article 1:
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”

The Declaration emphasized liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. It proclaimed freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, and the sovereignty of the people. Importantly, it broke from feudal traditions and asserted the universal nature of rights. These ideas would later influence the constitutions of many nations, including Nigeria.

While these early documents were monumental, they were not perfect. The Magna Carta did not protect women or peasants, and the French Declaration did not extend full rights to women or enslaved people in French colonies. But they signaled a new era one where rights were no longer gifts from rulers, but entitlements grounded in human dignity.

However, the greatest leap came after World War II, when the world, shocked by the Holocaust and widespread atrocities, convened under the United Nations to craft a global framework of human dignity.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was born (Wikipedia, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). It declared that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It introduced the world to 30 rights including freedom from torture, freedom of speech, the right to work, and the right to education. Though not legally binding, it inspired over 60 international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Nigeria, having gained independence in 1960, is a signatory to most major international human rights treaties (Wikipedia, ‘Human rights in Nigeria’ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Nigeria> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria enshrines many of these rights in Chapter IV from the right to life (Section 33) to freedom of expression (Section 39) and movement (Section 41). However, these rights are too often suspended in practice not through law, but through silence, impunity, and neglect.

As we trace this historical evolution, a painful irony becomes clear: never before have human rights been more recognized, yet so routinely violated. The gap between theory and reality continues to widen.

NIGERIA AND THE GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS

Human rights lose their power when they are not equally applied. While laws may proclaim that all people are equal before the law, reality often reveals a very different picture especially in societies like Nigeria, where social, economic, and cultural divisions determine whose rights are truly respected. The most dangerous threat to human rights is not always violent abuse, but silent exclusion. Across gender, ethnicity, disability, and sexual identity, many Nigerians are systematically denied full citizenship in the realm of rights.

Women, who make up nearly half of Nigeria’s population (STATISTICAL REPORT ON WOMEN AND MEN IN NIGERIA (2022) <https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/2022_Statistical_Report%20on%20Women%20and%20Men_%20in%20Nigeria.pdf> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.), continue to face entrenched discrimination. The 1999 Constitution guarantees equality under Section 42 (1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person…, and Nigeria has ratified key international instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Eseni Azu Udu et al., ‘Evaluating the Enforcement of the Rights of Women under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 1979: The Nigerian Experience’ (2023) Beijing Law Review 14 (2). However, the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill, which seeks to domesticate CEDAW into Nigerian law, has been rejected multiple times in the National Assembly (Femi Falana, ‘Condemnation of the National Assembly’s rejection of bills seeking gender equality by Funmi Falana’ Vanguard News <https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/condemnation-of-the-national-assemblys-rejection-of-bills-seeking-gender-equality-by-funmi-falana/> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). Women’s rights to inheritance, land ownership, education, and protection from gender based violence remain severely compromised, especially in rural and northern regions.

According to the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS 2018), 31% of women aged 15 to 49 have experienced physical violence (*FIDA, ‘PRESS STATEMENT BY FIDA NIGERIA ON THE COMMEMORATION OF INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY 2025’ <https://fida.org.ng/author/lern/page/6/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20across%20Nigeria%2C%20millions%20of,states%2C%20leaving%20many%20women%20unprotected.> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.), while about 1 in 4 Nigerian girls are married before age 18 in violation of the Child Rights Act (2003). Although this law prohibits child marriage, it has not been adopted in several northern states where religious or cultural practices override federal statutes. The result is a two tiered legal system that fails to offer equal protection to all Nigerian children.

The rights of persons with disabilities are similarly neglected. After years of advocacy, Nigeria passed the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act in 2018, which mandates accessibility, education, and protection against discrimination (Anietie Ewang, ‘Nigeria Passes Disability Rights Law; Offers Hope of Inclusion, Improved Access’ Human rights watch <https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/25/nigeria-passes-disability-rights-law> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.).

However, enforcement remains minimal. Many public buildings, schools, and health centers are still inaccessible, and employers routinely exclude disabled persons from job opportunities, despite Section 6 of the Act requiring equal employment access. The National Commission for Persons with Disabilities, established to oversee compliance, remains under resourced and under recognized.

Religious minorities, too, face threats to their basic freedoms. Nigeria’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (As Amended) is often tested in regions where religious laws are enforced to the detriment of minorities. In 2022, the killing of Deborah Samuel, a Christian student in Sokoto accused of blasphemy, drew national and international outrage. Despite video evidence, few arrests were made, and no prosecutions followed (Aljazeera, ‘Mob kills student over ‘blasphemy’ in northern Nigerian college’ <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/12/mob-kills-student-over-blasphemy-in-northern-nigerian-college> Accessed on the 4th of December, 2025.). This case shows the dangerous intersection of mob justice, religious extremism, and weak rule of law.

Ethnic marginalization also remains a major fault line in Nigeria’s political and social fabric. From the historic exclusion of Igbo people after the Biafran War, to the neglect of minority communities in the Niger Delta and Middle Belt, political power and resource allocation are often shaped by ethnic favoritism. The execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists in 1995 for protesting environmental degradation in the Niger Delta remains one of Nigeria’s most infamous human rights violations. Though the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) was created to address the region’s neglect, corruption and underperformance have kept many oil-producing communities impoverished and polluted.

These realities expose a hard truth: the majority of Nigerians live on the margins of their own rights. Legal recognition means little without enforcement, and equality on paper is meaningless without access, inclusion, and accountability.

A human rights framework must address not only individual liberty but also systemic inequality. If justice is to have real meaning in Nigeria, it must start by amplifying the voices of those pushed to the edges women, children, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities. These are not special interest groups; they are citizens of equal worth, entitled to the same protections, dignity, and opportunities as anyone else. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. – Nelson Mandela.

Continue Reading

Trending