The Oracle

The Oracle: Justice Denied? The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Sunday Jackson’s Self-Defence Case (Pt. 1)

Published

12 months ago

May 3, 2025

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court judgment in SUNDAY JACKSON V. STATE (SC/CR/1026/2022), delivered on the 7th of March, 2025, has sparked widespread legal and moral outrage across Nigeria. In affirming the death sentence handed down by the trial court, the apex court failed to deliver substantial justice in a case marked by procedural breaches, rigid legalism, and a troubling disregard for the fundamental right of self-defence. This essay critically examines the judgment, arguing that it is unjust, perverse, unscholarly, and wholly unjustified in both reasoning and outcome.

In a nation where the winds of uncertainty often shake the pillars of governance, the judiciary stands as the last bastion of hope, a symbol of justice, fairness and the enduring promise that truth can still prevail in Nigeria.

The gravity of judicial responsibility, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, cannot be overstated. As the apex court and final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate guardian of the Nigerian Constitution, the protector of public rights, and the interpreter of the law. Its pronouncements not only resolve individual disputes but also shape the trajectory of national jurisprudence, social order, and democratic integrity. A single judgment from the Supreme Court becomes binding precedent, reverberating through all lower courts and across the institutions of governance. This elevated position demands that its Justices of the apex court exercise the highest levels of legal intellect, moral integrity and impartial deliberations unclouded by politics, fear, favour, prejudice or personal interest.

The sanctity of the Court rests on the public’s faith in its wisdom, objectivity and commitment to justice. Citizens turn to the judiciary when every other organ of government has failed them; it is the last hope of the common man. Therefore, a poorly reasoned or blatantly biased judgment from the Supreme Court does more than harm the litigants before it inflicts deep and lasting damage on the national psyche. It sows seeds of cynicism and disillusionment, erodes confidence in the rule of law, and emboldens lawlessness in both high and low places. Worse still, inconsistent or politically tainted decisions fracture the coherence of the legal system, leaving lower courts unsure, litigants confused, and legal practitioners adrift. In a society already grappling with instability, corruption, and contested democratic norms, the Supreme Court’s responsibility becomes even more sacrosanct. Its every judgment must be a beacon of clarity, fairness and constitutional fidelity, because when justice falters at the summit, the entire legal edifice trembles beneath it.

The Sunday Jackson Metaphor

With every passing day, Sunday Jackson, draws closer to having a noose around his neck and a chair kicked from under him. He awaits a governor’s signature, his fate balanced between the executioner’s grip and the taste of freedom. The final conviction and death sentence passed on Sunday Jackson, a young farmer from Adamawa State, has sparked both legal and moral outrage, not only because of the Supreme Court’s judgement but also due to the broader implications it carries for justice, equity and the ordinary Nigerian’s faith in the law. At the heart of this case is a man, living in a region marred by years of deadly conflict between pastoralist herders and sedentary farmers, an environment where survival is often tied to the right to defend one’s land and life. Most Nigerians believe that the justice edifice failed citizen Jackson from the High Court, through to the intermediate court and up to the Supreme Court.

Summary of Facts

SUNDAY JACKSON V. THE STATE (SUPRA)

On the 7th of March, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment that sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. The apex court upheld the death sentence passed Sunday Jackson, a local farmer from Adamawa State, who had been convicted of killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, during a violent encounter on his farmland. The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence.

The incident that led to Jackson’s prosecution occurred sometime in 2018 in Kodomti, Numan Local Government Area of Adamawa State. Jackson had gone to harvest thatching grass on his farm when he was confronted by Bawuro, who allegedly accused him of being involved in the killing of his cattle. A confrontation ensued. According to Jackson’s statement, Bawuro attacked him with a dagger. In the struggle that followed, Jackson managed to disarm him and, in a bid to protect himself, stabbed Bawuro in the neck multiple times. The herdsman died from his injuries. Jackson fled the scene but was later apprehended and charged with culpable homicide punishable with death.

The Judgement And Some Legal Challenges

Despite Jackson’s plea of self-defence, the trial court in Adamawa state and subsequently the Court of Appeal, rejected his argument and found him guilty of murder under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in affirming this decision, concluded that Jackson’s use of force was excessive and unnecessary once the threat was neutralized by his having disarmed his assailant. This reasoning, however, has not gone unchallenged.

The judgment, which took 167 days to be delivered after the final written addresses far exceeding the 90-day constitutional deadline raises serious procedural concerns. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that judgments must be delivered not later than 90 days after the conclusion of arguments. Legal analysts argue that such delays not only breach constitutional provisions but also affect the credibility and validity of judgments, especially in capital cases where human life is at stake.

Even more contentious was the court’s interpretation of self-defence. While acknowledging that self-defence is a complete defence to murder, the court still found that Jackson fulfilled only part of the legal criteria. According to the judgment, although Jackson did not provoke the attack and was in immediate peril, he failed to retreat once he had disarmed the deceased. The court reasoned that having seized the dagger, Jackson no longer faced an imminent threat and should have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force. This position has been widely criticized as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.

Jackson’s claim was consistent and straightforward; he acted instinctively to preserve his life in the face of sudden, life-threatening danger. The stabbing occurred during a physical struggle. The notion that he had a clear and safe opportunity to flee while entangled in a fight with an armed opponent is, at best, speculative and, at worst, a dangerous oversimplification of a clear and perfect danger to his life. The apex court appeared to construct a simplistic mental narrative that did not align with the raw, chaotic nature of real-life violence.

The most alarming aspect of the judgment was the court’s failure to apply the doctrine of excessive self-defence, which is well recognized under Section 222(2) of the Penal Code. This provision reduces a murder charge to manslaughter where death occurs in the course of self-defence but with force that exceeds what is reasonably necessary. In similar cases, such AS OKONKWO V STATE (1998) 4 NWLR 143 CA, the courts acknowledged the value of subjective human reaction under extreme fear and pressure. The Supreme Court, in Jackson’s case, chose a strictly objective standard and ignored compelling evidence that Jackson acted in a state of panic and fear.

In a nation plagued by constant deadly farmer-herder clashes, often fueled by a failure of state security and law enforcement, the case of Sunday Jackson represents a grim reminder of how legal rigidity can compound social injustice. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify and evolve the jurisprudence of self-defence in Nigeria to align it with human reality, constitutional guarantees, and moral common sense. Instead, it chose a path, in my humble thinking, that seems more invested in procedural technicality than in substantial justice.

As the Supreme Court famously held, justice, ultimately, must not only be done but must be seen to have been done. In Sunday Jackson’s case, it appears neither was. See ADMINISTRATOR & EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ABACHA V SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR – 3152 and R. V. SUSSEX JUSTICES EXPARTE MCCARTHY (1924) 1KB 256 at 259.

Overview Of The Supreme Court Judgement: Points Of Concern

1. Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in judgment delivery

One of the most glaring issues with the judgment is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgment delivery. Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgment within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions on the 27th of August, 2020, judgment was not delivered until the 10th of February, 2021, a staggering 167-day delay. This delay not only breached the Constitution but also the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the state, which guards against undue delay in criminal trials. And as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. See the cases of COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EKIADOLOR & ORS V OBAYAGBONA (1028) LPELR-40154 (CA) and DIAMOND BANK PLC V SLIMPOT (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR-41612 (CA).

Such procedural irregularities are not mere technicalities when the life of an accused is on the line. Legal precedent and statutory provisions affirm that a judgment delivered outside constitutional limits is voidable, especially when it could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Yet, the Supreme Court chose to sidestep this error, affirming a death sentence based on a tainted process. The implications of this oversight go beyond Jackson’s case; it undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold its own rules.

2. Misapplication of the Doctrine of Self-defence

The Supreme Court’s narrow and mechanical application of the self-defence doctrine marks another troubling aspect of the judgment. By Jackson’s uncontested account, he was suddenly and violently attacked by the deceased, a herdsman armed with a dagger. A physical struggle ensued, during which Jackson managed to disarm the attacker and, in a moment of survival instinct, stabbed him multiple times. Jackson then fled the scene.

The court held that once Jackson had disarmed his assailant, he was no longer in danger and should have retreated. This finding was both speculative and disconnected from the realities of close-combat self-defence. The retrieval of the weapon and the fatal stabbing occurred nearly simultaneously, during an intense physical altercation. The court’s assumption that Jackson had a viable opportunity to retreat was not supported by the available evidence. It further ignored the psychological turmoil and imminent threat Jackson faced at that moment.

Even if Jackson exceeded reasonable force in the heat of the encounter, section 222(2) of the Penal Code clearly states that where death results from excessive force used in self-defence in good faith, the appropriate charge is manslaughter, not murder. The court’s refusal to consider this statutory mitigation reveals a disturbing commitment to technical rigidity over fair and context-sensitive adjudication. (To be continued).

Though for the week

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice”. (Montesquieu).

The Oracle

The Oracle: Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (Pt. 1)

Published

1 day ago

May 1, 2026

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Man as distinct from other beings is rational and has morals. He has the power of reason which enables him to differentiate between right and wrong, between good and bad, and also between justice and injustice. He therefore possesses honour and dignity which are higher than that of other beings. Human rights are necessary to protect this honour and dignity which nature has bestowed on human kind. They ensure (where these rights are enforced) that human kind is not degraded or made inhumane. Chapter IV (Sections 17-32) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1963, had provided that:

“No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman degrading punishment or other treatment.”

This has been replicated in section 3 of the 1999 Constitution. Equally, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, 1984 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.”

There is therefore a great need to protect and ensure the protection of these inherent rights and freedoms.

WHAT IS A RIGHT?

Before discussing the ways and means by which one may enforce his fundamental human rights, it is apposite to first understand the context in which “right” is used.

‘Right’ in ordinary language means power of free action; a demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. It is an interest recognized by law, respect for which is a duty and disregard of which is wrong. It refers to the cultural, political, social, economic advantage to which a person has just claim, either morally or in law. It is distinct from privilege.

Right described as ‘human’ refers to a category of rights which are specified and in most cases protected by law. Every human being is entitled to such rights and no person may be denied of such rights except through the due process of law. Cranston therefore holds the strong view 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 invaded some things which are supremely sacred”

Kayode Eso, JSC. (as he then was) re-affirmed the importance of human rights in RANSOME KUTI Vs. A-G OF THE FEDERATION, (1985) CLR 6(d) (SC), when he said of human rights:

“… 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 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.”

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS?

“Fundamental rights” are generally regarded as those aspects of human rights which have been recognized and entrenched in the constitution of a country. They are specially provided for to enhance human dignity and liberty in every modern state. In the Nigerian context, the terms “human right”, “fundamental right” and “fundamental human right” are always used interchangeably. This has been justified by a learned author who posited forcefully that:

“Human rights remain so, whether they occur in the international plane or within municipal confines and whether they are called ‘human rights’ or ‘fundamental rights’. It should be noted that the international bill of rights – the universal declaration of Human rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- use the expression fundamental human rights, so also the U.N charter.” (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948).

Since the Constitution specifically provides for fundamental rights, Nigerian Court have found it expedient to draw a line of dichotomy between ‘human rights’ and ‘fundamental rights’. Thus, in UZOUKWU & ORS Vs. EZEONU II & ORS, (1991) 6 NWLR (pt 200) p. 708, the Court of Appeal (per Nasir P. C. A) put in with apt clarity and lucidity:

“Due to the development of Constitutional law in the field, distinct difference has emerged between ‘Fundamental Right’ and ‘Human Rights’. It may be recalled that human rights were derived from and out of the wider concept of natural rights. They are rights which every civilized society must accept as belonging to each person as human being. These were termed human rights. When the United Nations made its declaration it was in respect of Human Rights which belong to all human beings irrespective of citizenship, race, religion and so on. This has now formed part of international law. Fundamental Rights remain in the realm of domestic law. They are fundamental because they have been guaranteed by the fundamental law of the country, that is by the Constitution.”

Nature and Classification of Human Rights

Human rights are generally grouped under five sub-headings namely; Civil Rights, Political Rights, Social Rights, Economic Rights and Cultural Rights. We shall however discuss these classifications under two broad further categorization, that is:

Civil and Political Rights: these includes the right to self-determination, the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to fair trial, right to privacy, freedom of thought conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, the right of assembly, freedom of association, and movement, the right to marry and found a family, the right to participate in one’s Government either directly or through freely elected representatives, and the right to nationality and equality before the law.

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC Rights) include the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to organize, form and join trade unions, the right to social security, the right to collective bargaining, the right to property, the right to education, the right to participate in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.

The importance of these rights cannot be over emphasized. So important are they that they have been universally recognized and acclaimed by the international community. The universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other United Nations Covenant on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human race on an equal scale as the foundation of freedom, peace and justice in the world.

NOW THIS

HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA AND INTERNATIONAL CHARTERS AND CONVENTIONS

The emergence of human rights in documented form in Nigeria can be traced to the Nigeria Bill of Rights of 1959. This was incorporated into the 1960 Independence Constitution in 1963; these rights were reproduced 111 of the 1963 Republican Constitution. These fundamental human rights are provided for in Chapter Iv of both the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with some improvements.

The reverence of these human rights can be seen from their recognition, promotion and protection under international law. Charters and Conventions have been globally drawn, and under various economic, geographical and political blocs for the promotion and protection from abuse of these rights. The United Nation (UN) has been championing the global protection of these rights as can be seen from the various chapters of the UN charter. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1984) proclamation states as follows:

“This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all the end that every individual and every organ of society keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measure, national and international to secure observance both among people of member states themselves and among people of territories under their jurisdiction.”

Article 30 of the Charter further provides thus:

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any action aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

The Declaration by its provisions sets out the minimum standard to be observed by countries of the world in relation to human rights.

There is also the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which has become, in Nigeria, a potent source of quick remedy against gross violation of human rights under municipal laws which remedy could not be traced to the laws because of ouster clauses built in them. The charter has since been ratified in Nigeria as African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 1 FN 1990. The importance of the African Charter was underlined by Eniola Longe J, in the case of MOHAMMED GARUBA & ORS V. A.G OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (Unreported Suit No. ID/559/90), when he held:

“The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights of which Nigeria is a signatory is now made into our law… Even if its aspect in our constitution is suspended or ousted by provisions of our local law, the international aspect of it cannot be unilaterally abrogated…”

AND THIS LIMITATION ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Under section 45 of the 1999 Constitution and many constitutional expressions of fundamental rights, certain qualifications or restriction which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society are incorporated in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health or for the purpose protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons. Consequently, the aforesaid rights are generally subjected to these limitations.

ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS

Procedure for the enforcement of the fundamental rights provisions enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is guided and regulated by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. It is pertinent to state here that the above rules are made pursuant to the powers conferred on the Chief Justice of Nigeria by section 46(3) of the Constitution, which provided thus:

“The Chief Justice of Nigeria may make rules with respect to the practice and procedure of a High Court for the purpose of this section.” (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Each state, so that it does not abridge the great fundamental rights belonging, under the Constitution, to all citizens, may grant or withhold such civil rights as it pleases; all that is required is that, in this respect, its laws shall be impartial”. (Lyman Trumbull).

The Oracle

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

Published

1 week ago

April 24, 2026

Eric

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.

The Oracle

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

Published

2 weeks ago

April 17, 2026

Eric

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.