The Oracle

The Oracle: The University As a Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 3)

Published

4 months ago

December 27, 2025

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

The previous installment examined the history of universities and tertiary institutions worldwide, focusing on Germany, Africa and, of course, Nigeria. This week’s piece discusses the various educational theories in the context of universities and the society. Enjoy.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS LINKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT

HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY

Human Capital Theory treats education, training and health as investments in individuals that raise productivity and yield economic returns; analogous to investing in machines or physical capital. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/human-capital-theory> > Accessed on 8th September, 2025. The concept was popularized in the 1960s by economists such as Theodore W. Schultz and Gary Becker, and it underpins much economic analysis of education policy, labour markets, and public investment decisions (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032715/what-human-capital-and-how-it-used.asp > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Since human capital is the engine of growth, universities then are central economic actors: they produce the skilled labour force, certify competencies and supply the tacit knowledge that firms use. This viewpoint justifies public and private investment in tertiary education, scholarship programs and vocational streams tied to labour market needs. It also explains why governments measure returns to education (wage premiums, productivity gains) and why universities are increasingly evaluated on employability and graduate outcomes.

Human Capital Theory can however be reductive. It tends to treat education as a private good (individual returns) rather than a public good (citizenship, democratic capacity). It may downplay social, cultural and distributional aspects (who gets access to education) and does not fully account for structural constraints (e.g., labour market segmentation or discriminatory hiring). Because it privileges measurable returns, it can encourage narrow vocationalization at the expense of broader civic or critical functions of universities.

MODERNIZATION THEORY

This theory links societal development to social and cultural change: industrialization, urbanization, mass education and bureaucratic institutions produce modern political and social systems (including democracy). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/modernization-theory?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025. Early models (e.g., Rostow’s stages of growth) posited relatively linear transitions from “traditional” to “modern” societies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostow%27s_stages_of_growth > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Under modernizationism, universities are engines of modernity: they train bureaucrats, scientists and professionals; diffuse new norms (rationality, meritocracy); and anchor public infrastructure for national development. Expansion of higher education is thus seen as both a consequence and driver of modernization, boosting technical capacity, administrative competence and civic culture.

Modernization Theory has been critiqued for teleology and Eurocentrism (assuming every society follows a single Western trajectory). It can overlook power asymmetries, external constraints, and the role of historical contingency. In practice, simply increasing university enrolment does not guarantee progressive political change or even broad economic growth. Outcomes depend on institutional quality, labour market absorption and equitable access.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Social Learning Theory, developed most prominently by Albert Bandura (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), rests on the idea that people do not learn solely through direct instruction or reinforcement, but also by observing the behaviours of others and modelling them. Central to this framework are concepts such as imitation, role modelling, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism — the continuous interaction between personal factors, behaviour, and the surrounding environment. Learning, in this sense, is always contextual and socially mediated; it takes place within environments where norms, values, and practices are continuously displayed, reinforced, or challenged (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura’s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_ Cognitive_Leari ing_Theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Universities are particularly powerful environments for this kind of social learning. While their formal role is to deliver structured knowledge through lectures, textbooks, and examinations, a significant portion of what students learn occurs indirectly, through observation and participation in academic and professional cultures. Students acquire tacit skills, professional norms, and ethical habits not simply from classroom instruction but from the examples set by faculty, supervisors, peers, and the wider institutional culture. The mentoring relationship between professor and student, the apprenticeship model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325205611_A_Model_of_Supervision_Derived_from_Apprenticeship_ Training> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) of supervision in research or clinical placements, and the informal communities of practice that develop in research groups, laboratories, or student societies all serve as fertile grounds for modelling and imitation. Even the visibility of public intellectuals and successful alumni plays a role, offering aspirational figures whose trajectories implicitly teach what is possible within a given discipline or profession.

The culture of the university itself further shapes learning outcomes. Practices around academic integrity, collegiality, debate, and critical inquiry are not just rules or codes of conduct; they are behaviours continuously modelled and observed. The institutional environment signals what is valued, what is rewarded, and what is considered unacceptable, thereby reinforcing professional and ethical standards.

For university administrators and educators, the programmatic implications of Social Learning Theory are profound. It suggests that teaching should not be conceived narrowly as transmission of knowledge, but as the creation of social contexts in which desirable behaviours and practices are modelled, observed, and internalised. This is why experiential and observational learning opportunities — such as simulations, laboratory work, clinical rotations, internships, peer-learning programs, and scaffolded mentoring — are indispensable components of modern higher education. Equally, it underscores the idea that institutional signaling is as powerful as the curriculum itself: what a university models through its governance, culture, and every day practices often matters as much as what it formally teaches.

DEPENDENCY THEORY

Dependency Theory (https://www.britannica.com/topic/dependency-theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s through the works of scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274283993_A_Discourse_on_Andre_Gunder_Frank’s_ Contribution_tohe_Theory_and_Study_of_Development_and_Underdevelopment_its_Implication_on_Nigeria’s_development_situation> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso with Enzo Faletto, offers a critical lens for understanding patterns of underdevelopment in the global South. At its core, the theory argues that poverty and economic stagnation in many countries are not simply the result of internal shortcomings, but are structurally produced by the way these economies are integrated into the global system. Within this framework, resources, labour, and value consistently flow from the “periphery” to the “core” — that is, from less-developed to more-developed nations — thereby reinforcing dependency and limiting autonomous development. This unequal exchange is further compounded by colonial legacies and by global markets that continue to privilege the interests of industrialised nations over those of emerging economies.

Applied to higher education, Dependency Theory illuminates how universities can inadvertently reproduce dependency rather than foster genuine autonomy. For instance, many institutions import curricula, teaching models, and research frameworks designed in the global North, often without adequate adaptation to local realities. Research agendas are frequently influenced, if not dictated, by donor priorities or international funding agencies, which means that intellectual labour may serve external rather than national needs. Accreditation and evaluation systems also tend to valorize Western benchmarks of quality, sometimes at the expense of context-specific measures of success. Furthermore, the phenomenon of “brain drain,” where highly trained graduates migrate to wealthier countries in search of better opportunities, deprives developing regions of the very human capital they have invested in creating.

These dynamics raise urgent questions about intellectual sovereignty and the role of universities in national development. Dependency Theory thus motivates a range of responses oriented toward decolonization and autonomy. Universities are encouraged to build indigenous research agendas that prioritize local challenges and opportunities, to strengthen scholarship in local languages, and to invest in technologies that are context-relevant rather than imported wholesale. Equally, there is value in creating robust regional research networks that allow knowledge exchange across the global South, thereby reducing reliance on metropolitan centres of knowledge production.

Ultimately, Dependency Theory challenges universities in developing countries to move beyond the role of feeding foreign labour markets or servicing donor-driven priorities. Instead, it urges them to play a more proactive role in shaping national industrial strategies, technological innovation, and cultural identity. In this way, universities become not just sites of knowledge transfer but also engines of self-determined development and resistance to the structural inequalities embedded in the global economy.

KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY THEORY

The concept of the knowledge economy reframes the drivers of economic growth around knowledge, innovation and human capital, rather than relying solely on traditional physical inputs such as land, labour, and raw materials. In this framework, institutions that generate, diffuse, and commercialize knowledge — universities, research centres, and high-tech firms — assume a central role in shaping productivity and competitiveness (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). The policy discourse around the knowledge economy has been heavily shaped by global institutions such as the The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5152799_The_Knowledge Based_Economy_Conceptual_Framework_or_Buzzword> Accessed on 8th September, 2025, the World Bank (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) , and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114252> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which have developed both conceptual frameworks and measurement tools for understanding innovation systems and knowledge-driven growth.

Within this paradigm, universities perform a wide range of overlapping economic functions. At the most fundamental level, they engage in both basic and applied research, producing new knowledge and technologies that advance science and industry. They also serve as sites of talent production, equipping graduates, researchers, and postdoctoral fellows with skills that fuel the labour market. Beyond this, universities act as engines of technology transfer, turning academic discoveries into practical innovations through patents, licensing agreements, and start-ups. They also provide policy advice and consulting, often shaping industrial strategies and informing public decision-making.

Governments and universities operationalize the knowledge economy through a variety of policy levers and institutional instruments. These include research and development (R&D) funding, research fellowships, and infrastructure investments that sustain academic inquiry. They also extend to structured university–industry partnerships, incubators, technology transfer offices, and science parks designed to accelerate commercialization. Intellectual property regimes, such as Bayh-Dole type reforms, have further enabled universities to retain rights over publicly funded research and translate it into marketable products. Alongside these measures, the use of metrics and indicators such as patents, publications, citations, and innovation indices has become an essential tool for benchmarking performance and guiding policy interventions.

Yet, the knowledge economy is not without its risks and critiques. The emphasis on commercialization and measurable outputs can sometimes push universities to prioritize short-term applied research over fundamental scholarship, which may undermine their broader educational and societal missions. There is also the danger of mission drift, as universities increasingly orient themselves toward market logics at the expense of cultural, ethical, and civic roles. Moreover, if access to the benefits of innovation is uneven. For instance, concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups the knowledge economy risks deepening inequality rather than mitigating it. (To be continued).

THOUGHT TOR THE WEEK

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education”. (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The Oracle

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

Published

6 days 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

2 weeks 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

3 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.