DEPARTMENT OF LAW

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a procedure that has no specific origin, one fact that can be agreed upon however is that there are no health benefits for the procedure. The research methodology employed in this study is the doctrinal method, which involves an in- depth examination of primary and secondary sources of information. FGM is any procedure that involves the cutting, removal, or scarification of the external female genitalia for non- medical reasons. It has been classified into four types; Type I (Clitoridectomy), Type II (Excision), Type III (Infibulation), Type IV (Unclassified). It is a procedure which has
numerous side effects on the victim like bleeding, infections, septicaemia, dysmenorrhea, vaginal infections, genital scarring, death, amongst others, there have been various efforts taken to curb the menace, there have been local, regional or international legislation. Like the provisions of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, the Violence Against
Persons (Prohibition) Law of Edo State, the Childs Rights Act, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the Maputo Protocol, the United Nations Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, etc. Some policies that have been implemented in Nigeria also for The Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation, and the work of various civil societies. It if found that while considerable progress has been made, there is more to do if FGM is to be eradicated by 2030. It is found that the most effective method of eradicating FGM is by
sensitisation programmes where the general public is made aware of the physical and legal dangers of the procedure and these efforts need to be supported with corresponding funding in order to be able to sustain the progress that has already been achieved

Human Rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being. Right from the evolutionary point of Human Rights, there have been arguments as to its natural existence, also its applicability across places and spaces within the context of their socio-cultural, political, and
economic realities. Thus, the discourse of the Universalism and Cultural Relativism of human rights is one of great controversy in both domestic and international levels. Essentially, most if not all the Human Rights instrument provide that Human Rights are Universal, for instance the provisions of the UDHR1 preamble, which declares itself a ‘standard of achievement for all people’. The cultural relativist argue that human rights or at least certain human rights are a result of Western influence, and as such should not be imposed on other cultures, it promotes the tolerance of other cultures and challenges the universality of human rights. With respect to the subject of gay rights which has provoked a lot of outburst from Africans and the Westerners on its implementation and practice universally. While many Africans consider LGBT as immoral to their culture, the Westerners consider it as part of human rights. This long essay would attempt to distinguish between the universalism and cultural relativism of human rights, and within the context of LGBT rights in Nigeria as a focus, its legislation;
Prohibition and Punishment of LGBT practice, the implication of such in the society, noting that nowhere in sight is the political consensus on LGBT rights equating with human rights in Nigeria.

This research focuses on the critical examination of the rule of Interpretation of statute vis-a-vis Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) as amended. The contention existing in the political and legal space after the 2023 presidential general election, bordering on the mandatoriness of 25% of votes cast in the FCT is a novel one in the Nigerian Electoral history. Using the doctrinal/library base methodology, this research investigates canons of Interpretation of Statute as it relates to Section 134(2)(b) 1999 CFRN. The new purposive approach of Interpretating a statute, which encompasses liberal Interpretation of constitution is treated with utmost legal precision as the recent presidential election tribunal position is reviewed. The rationale behind divided opinions x-ray alongside brief theories and presumption that goes with Interpretations. It is reveal that the said section is unprecise, unclear and ambiguous to the common man, therefore there is a need for constitutional amendment. The recommendation is necessary so that justice will not only be done but seen as done in our democratic society.

A victim is a person who suffers harm due to the criminal actions of another individual. Acts that victimize people are often considered crimes by the law, therefore these actions are punishable by the state. Nigeria has always prosecuted criminals, but it is only recently that Nigeria started to actively protect victims. A victim has to travel down the various channels of the criminal justice system with the first point of call being the law enforcement officers. A bystander on the outside may think that the pursuit of justice is all rosy for victims of crime, but that is not the case in reality. When Nigeria established the ACJA and VAPPA, victim protection laws were introduced to provide rights to victims as they seek justice. Victims have a role to play in the prosecution of their attackers, albeit a very minimal one. This is because the state prosecutes the accused, not the victim. Victims are relegated to mere witnesses throughout the prosecution. They do not have much say in the prosecution of their accused offenders. The case is left to the discretion of the prosecuting counsel with the hope that he executes it properly. The choices and opinions of victims are never taken into consideration, hence the feeling of hopelessness that victims often feel while seeking justice. The Nigerian criminal justice system easily neglects the victim despite the laws present in ACJA and VAPPA and focuses on the prosecution of accusers. This has an impact on the experience of victims. By default, victims and the general public do not have faith in the criminal justice system. By reviewing the legal frameworks in Nigeria and why they fall short in comparison to those present in the U.S. and U.K., we can identify its weak points. This is the first step in creating a more victim-sensitive and victim-focused justice system as well as creating a fertile ground for victim advocacy and victim support institutes.