The Oracle

The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)

Published

2 months ago

March 13, 2026

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural installment of this piece was necessarily foundational, providing the background to the emergence of AI; how it transformed the digital space; applicable regulatory frameworks; its algorithimic transparency/accountability; its ethical dimensions and implications and the threat of foreign tech dominance/digital colonialism. This sophomore edition traces the evolution of AI; notable developments; the history of technological dependency in Africa and policy trends in the continent and beyond. Enjoy.

THE EVOLUTION OF AI

AI has progressed from rule-based systems to machine learning and deep learning models capable of autonomous decision-making. Applications range from healthcare diagnostics to autonomous vehicles, predictive policing, and financial algorithms. While AI enhances productivity, concerns arise over:

Job displacement due to automation. (Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company).

Surveillance capitalism, where personal data is exploited for profit.

Algorithmic governance, where AI influences public policy without sufficient oversight (O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown Publishing.). The conceptual origins of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be traced to the mid-20th century, when pioneering figures such as Alan Turing and John McCarthy began to explore the possibility of creating machines capable of simulating human intelligence. Turing’s seminal 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” posed the provocative question, “Can machines think?”—a question that laid the philosophical groundwork for modern AI research. (Turing, Alan M. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind 59, no. 236 (1950): 433–460.) McCarthy, who coined the term “artificial intelligence” in 1956, convened the historic Dartmouth Conference, widely considered the birth of AI as a formal field of inquiry (McCarthy, John et al., “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence,” (1955).

EARLY ASPIRATIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL MILESTONES

Early AI efforts focused on symbolic logic, rule-based systems, and expert systems, which relied on hand-coded rules to simulate decision-making processes. These systems, while limited in scope, found application in fields such as medical diagnostics (e.g., MYCIN) and chess-playing algorithms. The emergence of machine learning in the late 20th century—particularly supervised learning techniques—ushered in a new era in which machines could learn patterns from data rather than rely solely on pre-programmed rules.
The exponential growths in computing power, availability of big data, and algorithmic innovation have since culminated in what many scholars refer to as the “AI revolution.”

NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS

Notable developments include deep learning techniques powered by artificial neural networks, natural language processing exemplified by large language models (LLMs), and computer vision systems that rival or exceed human performance in specific domains (LeCun, Yann, Bengio, Yoshua, and Hinton, Geoffrey. “Deep Learning.” Nature 521, no. 7553 (2015): 436–444).

FROM AUTOMATION TO AUTONOMY

AI has transitioned from automating repetitive tasks to performing complex cognitive functions previously thought to be the exclusive domain of humans. Self-driving cars, AI legal assistants, autonomous drones, and AI-generated art demonstrate the breadth of AI’s applications. As these systems grow in sophistication, they increasingly exhibit autonomy—the capacity to make decisions and take actions without direct human intervention. This shift raises profound questions about accountability, transparency, and control.

ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPERENCY AND CONTROL

For example, autonomous weapons systems capable of selecting and engaging targets without human oversight challenge existing norms under international humanitarian law (IHL). Similarly, AI systems deployed in judicial or parole decisions raise concerns about bias, fairness, and due process, especially when the logic behind decisions is opaque even to their developers—a phenomenon referred to as the “black box problem.” (Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, 2015).

HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY IN AFRICA

The critique that digital technologies embody, enable, or reproduce colonial power relations is not new. As early as the 1970s, debates around communication and technology were linked to questions of sovereignty, inequality and dependency. In March 1976, at the Non-Aligned Media Seminar in Tunis, representatives from 38 NAM states and 13 observers declared that “colonialist, imperialist and racist powers have created effective means of information and communication which are conditioning the masses to the interests of these powers.” This seminar built on earlier efforts of the Non-Aligned Movement (est. 1955), which, by its 1973 Algiers summit, had embraced the decolonization of information, communication, and culture as part of the wider struggle for independence.

The Tunis meeting marked the birth of the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO); a call to redress global inequalities in media ownership, information flows, and infrastructure. Tunisian minister Mustapha Masmoudi highlighted the imbalance: “Almost 80 percent of the world news flow emanates from the major transnational agencies; however these devote only 20 to 30 percent of news coverage to the developing countries”. NWICO gained traction at UNESCO, culminating in the 1980 MacBride Report, which directly challenged the Western doctrine of “free flow of information.” The United States and the UK eventually withdrew from UNESCO in protest, but NWICO left a lasting intellectual and political legacy: it framed global communication as a site of structural inequality and technological dependency.

Building on these debates, communication scholars introduced the idea of electronic colonialism. Herbert Schiller’s Mass Communication and American Empire argued that U.S. commercial media systems were becoming instruments of empire. Thomas McPhail later extended this, defining electronic colonialism as “the dependent relationship of poorer regions on post-industrial nations, caused and established by the importation of communication hardware and foreign-produced software, along with engineers, technicians and related information protocols” (Jacob Mahlangu, ‘Technological Apartheid: The Digital Divide Between Africa and the West’ (Sagepub.com, 6th May, 2025) < https://advance.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.31124/advance.174652029.93416488/v1#:~:text=The%20digital%20divide%20between%20Africa%20and%20the%20West%20represents%20not,colonialism%2C%20and%20contemporary%20digital%20imperialism). This lens made clear that dependency was not only economic but also infrastructural and epistemic.

Parallel critiques arose in anthropology and development studies. Post-development theorists such as Arturo Escobar and James Ferguson argued that development projects often failed to empower but instead re-entrenched colonial hierarchies. They identified technology as a key tool in this process, framed as a “solution” but often deployed in paternalistic ways that deepened dependency. ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) initiatives of the late 1990s and early 2000s exemplified this tension. While promising to democratize knowledge and spur development, many projects replicated older patterns: reliance on imported technology, disregard for local context, and reinforcement of global asymmetries.

By the late 2000s, scholars in postcolonial computing extended these critiques to human–computer interaction (HCI). They demonstrated how design practices in “development tech” mirrored colonial flows: low-cost labor and raw materials from the Global South, transformed into finished products exported back under narratives of benevolence. The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project (< https://laptop.org/ > Accessed on 16th September, 2025) epitomized this, marketed as a humanitarian innovation but dependent on the feminized labour of Asian workers in global supply chains.

In 2013, Dal Yong Jin introduced platform imperialism, analyzing how U.S. tech giants like Google, Apple and Facebook exerted global dominance through platform capitalism, intellectual property regimes and cross-border expansion (Jin, Dal Yong, ‘“The Construction of Platform Imperialism in the Globalization Era.” Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal For a Global Sustainable Information Society’ ( Researchgate.net, January, 2013) < https://researchgate.net/publication/275652379_Jin_Dal_Yong_2013_The_Construction_of_Platform_Imperialism_in_the_Globalization_Era_Triple_C_Communication_Capitalism_Critique_Open_Access_Journal_For_a_Global_Sustainable_Information_Society_111_145-#:~:text=Abstract,accumulation%20in%20the%20digital%20age. > Accessed on 16th September, 2025). His argument made explicit that digital platforms were not neutral infrastructures but instruments of geopolitical power.

These intellectual trajectories resonate strongly with dependency theory, advanced by Samir Amin, which argued that underdevelopment in the Global South is not accidental but structurally produced through dependence on the North. Applied to technology, this means Africa’s reliance on imported hardware, software, and infrastructures reinforces systemic subordination in the global digital hierarchy. Postcolonial thinkers like Frantz Fanon and Edward Said similarly highlighted how colonialism survives in cultural, psychological, and technological forms, keeping the Global South positioned as consumer rather than producer.

From NWICO to electronic colonialism, from ICT4D critiques to postcolonial computing and platform imperialism, the throughline is clear: each era has witnessed renewed forms of technological dependency. What changes are the technologies themselves: satellites, mass media, ICTs, platforms, and now AI, but the structural critique persists. Today’s debates on digital colonialism continue this intellectual lineage, reframing old concerns around sovereignty, extraction and dependency in terms of data, algorithms and artificial intelligence. Far from a rupture, this is the latest chapter in a long struggle for technological self-determination in Africa and the wider Global South.

AI POLICY TRENDS GLOBALLY AND IN AFRICA

Global AI policy is crystallizing around a few core themes: risk-based regulation of high-impact systems, the embedding of human rights (< https://2021-2025.state.gov/risk-management-profile-for-ai-and-human-rights/#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%20all%20193,the%20enjoyment%20of%20human%20rights.%E2%80%9D > (State.gov, 25th July, 2024) Accessed on 10th September, 2025) and ethics principles, and the development of technical standards to operationalize trustworthiness. The European Union’s AI (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai > Accessed on 10th September, 2025) Act illustrates this risk-based approach by classifying systems according to potential harm and imposing proportionate obligations, while still promoting innovation. Similarly, the OECD AI Principles (< https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles > (OECD.ai) Accessed on 10th September, 2025), the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (US) (< www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework > (NIST.gov) Accessed on 10th September, 2025), and UNESCO’s global AI ethics recommendations (< www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics#:~:text=Recommendation%20on%20the%20Ethics%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence,human%20oversight%20of%20AI%20systems. > (UNESCO.Org) Accessed on 10th September, 2025) provide international benchmarks centered on transparency, accountability, robustness, and human oversight.

USA, EU, CHINA’S PREFERENCES

National strategies, however, diverge. The United States favours voluntary, sector-specific frameworks to preserve innovation flexibility (Tatevik Davtyan, ‘THE U.S. APPROACH TO AI REGULATION: FEDERAL LAWS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES EXPLAINED’ (scholarlycommons.law.case.edu, 24th January, 2025) < https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/jolti/article/1172/&path_info=auto_convert.pdf > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). China pursues a state-driven, techno-industrial strategy linking AI to national development goals(Kyle Chan, Gregory Smith, Jimmy Goodrich, Gerard Dipippo, Konstantin F, Pilz ‘China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI’ (Rand.org, 26th June, 2025) < www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). The EU relies on its regulatory power (“the Brussels effect”) to set global supplier standards (Marco Almada, Anca Radu, ‘The Brussels Side-Effect: How the AI Act Can Reduce the Global Reach of EU Policy’ (Cambridge.org, 19th February, 2024) < www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/brussels-sideeffect-how-the-ai-act-can-reduce-the-global-reach-of-eu-policy/032C72AEC537EBB6AE96C0FD90387E3E > Accessed on 10th September, 2025). Together, these approaches create a patchwork of norms that countries and companies must navigate. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Like all technologies before it, Artificial Intelligence will reflect the values of its creators. So inclusivity matters – from who designs it to who sits on the company boards and which ethical perspectives are included” – Kate Crawford

The Oracle

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

Published

5 days 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.

The Oracle

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

Published

3 weeks ago

April 11, 2026

Eric

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.