DEPARTMENT OF LAW

The administration of criminal justice system in Nigeria has been bedevilled with numerous challenges, but of serious concern is the avoidable delay confronting the system. This delay, more often than not, results from technicalities employed by the defence simply by recourse to the right to object to the voluntariness of confessional statement even when in fact, the defendant may have voluntarily made such statement being objected to. Where such objection is raised, the proper order the court should make in such circumstances is to order trial within trial which usually stalls the substantive case until the voluntariness or otherwise of the said confessional statement is determined. The passage of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 by the then President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s administration has been viewed as a major breakthrough especially in the area of promoting efficient management of criminal justice institutions as well as speeding dispensation of justice in the criminal justice system in Nigeria. The study finds that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 makes a conscious effort at reducing delays in the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria as well as ensuring that the rights of defendants are adequately protected as expressly captured in section 1(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (the Act). It is the writer’s view that if the law enforcement agents can strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act which was enacted with a view to curbing the avoidable delays inherent in the system, the issue of trial within trial may become unnecessary in Nigeria courts. The resultant effect of reducing or (in extreme case) eradicating the avoidable trial within trial is that there will be speedy dispensation of justice. The research therefore aims at improving awareness on the need to compel the institutions, authorities and persons involved in criminal justice procedure and administration in Nigeria to comply with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 as enjoined in section 1(2) of the Act, if the objectives of the Act must be realised. In examining in extensio the causes of delay in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria, this research work employed the doctrinal methodology. For the purpose of this study, the form of data collection would encompass both primary and secondary data taking into cognizance both judicial and extra-judicial sources. In effect, sources such a relevant statutes and regulations, law reports, journals, articles, textbooks, conference papers, published legal and relevant internet materials etc. shall be utilized in the course of this work. The study recommends that there should be conscious effort on the part of the courts in ensuring that law enforcement agents adhere strictly to the provisions of the Act with a view to bridging the disparity between the law and practice, eleven years after its enactment. It is the writer’s view that if the relevant authorities can be committed to strictly enforcing the provisions of the Act, the avoidable delays inherent in Nigeria criminal justice system would be curbed and the objective of speedy dispensation of justice would be realised.

The escalating impacts of climate change in Nigeria, including oil pollution, deforestation, and flooding, necessitate robust legal mechanisms to ensure environmental accountability. This study evaluates climate change litigation and environmental accountability in Nigeria, focusing on the efficacy of judicial and regulatory frameworks in addressing environmental degradation. Through a doctrinal methodology, the study analyzes constitutional provisions, statutes like the Environmental Impact Assessment Act 1992, and landmark cases such as Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company (2005). It examines challenges in litigation, including locus standi, judicial capacity, and enforcement gaps, alongside the roles of regulatory bodies like NESREA and civil society in promoting accountability. Findings reveal that while Nigeria’s legal framework provides a foundation for climate litigation, inconsistent enforcement, limited judicial expertise, and corporate non- compliance hinder effectiveness. The study recommends legislative reforms to strengthen
environmental rights, enhanced judicial training, and greater public participation to bolster accountability. By addressing these gaps, Nigeria can align with international obligations under the Paris Agreement and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981, fostering sustainable environmental governance. This research underscores the urgent need
for a proactive judiciary and robust regulatory mechanisms to mitigate climate change impacts and ensure corporate and governmental accountability in Nigeria’s environmental landscape.

State sponsored torture remains a serious human rights concern despite its clear prohibition under international and regional law. In Nigeria and South Africa, reports of torture by state agents, especially police and security personnel, continue to raise questions about respect for human dignity, the rule of law and accountability within state institutions. This study examines state sponsored torture through a comparative analysis of Nigeria and South Africa in order to understand why the practice persists and how both countries have responded to it. The study aims to examine the nature and justification of state sponsored torture and to assess the effectiveness of the legal and institutional frameworks designed to prevent it in Nigeria and South Africa. A doctrinal and comparative research approach is adopted, drawing on legislation, court decisions, international conventions, official reports and relevant academic writings. The study finds that although both countries have formally committed themselves to the prohibition of torture and have put legal safeguards in place, enforcement remains weak in practice. South Africa has recorded more progress, largely due to its strong constitutional culture and oversight mechanisms, while Nigeria continues to struggle with poor implementation of laws, limited accountability for offenders and deep rooted institutional impunity. In both jurisdictions, torture is still commonly justified on the grounds of security, crime control and public order. The study concludes that ending state sponsored torture requires more than legal prohibition. It demands genuine political will, effective oversight of security agencies and a culture of respect for human rights. The study recommends stronger institutional accountability, improved enforcement of existing laws and continuous human rights training as practical steps toward addressing torture in both Nigeria and South Africa

This study examines medical negligence in Nigeria, focusing on the prevailing legal
standards, the allocation of the burden of proof, and mechanisms for patient protection. Anchored in doctrinal legal methodology, the research draws upon statutory instruments such as the National Health Act 2014, the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, and constitutional provisions that underscore the right to health and life. Additionally, the role of regulatory institutions—especially the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria
(MDCN)—is assessed in maintaining professional standards and enforcing disciplinary
frameworks. The analysis then unpacks the foundational tort elements of medical
negligence as recognized by Nigerian jurisprudence and mirrored in comparative
doctrine—namely, duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and resultant damages. The inquiry further explores nuanced exceptions, particularly the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur, which can shift the evidential weight onto the defendant where negligence is
self-evident. Central to the project is an examination of the burden of proof. The patient
claimant bears the primary responsibility to establish negligence on the balance of
probabilities as per Section 134 of the Evidence Act (2011). The study highlights key
patient protection avenues—civil claims for damages, criminal liability for gross
negligence, regulatory sanctions via the MDCN, and the enforcement of informed
consent and patient rights under relevant statutes.In conclusion, while Nigeria’s legal
framework articulates clear substantive standards, systemic barriers—including
procedural complexity, high litigation costs, scarcity of expert testimony, and cultural
reticence—severely impede access to justice. This project ultimately recommends
procedural reforms, enhanced judicial capacity, and institutional innovation to bolster
the adjudication of medical negligence claims and better protect patient rights

This research examines the challenges hindering the effective enforcement of the Child Rights Act (CRA) across various states in Nigeria. Although the CRA has been adopted at the national level, its functional operation varies significantly from state to state due to a range of socio- cultural, economic, religious, legal, and institutional factors. Through doctrinal analysis, this study conducts a comparative assessment between states where the Child Rights Law (CRL) is fully operational and those where it is less effectively implemented. To provide a balanced perspective, the research incorporates case studies from one state in each of Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones, focusing on two critical issues—child labour and child marriage. These are examined as persistent social ills that continue to thrive despite statutory prohibitions under the CRA and state CRLs. The study investigates why, in some states, the provisions are observed and enforced, while in others, deep-rooted cultural and religious norms undermine their application. By exploring the socio-cultural dynamics and specific state contexts that perpetuate these practices, this research aims to uncover the systemic barriers to the CRA’s practical enforcement. The study concludes with recommendations on how to achieve more uniform and functional implementation of the CRA across Nigeria, ensuring stronger protection of children’s rights irrespective of geographical or cultural boundaries.

Genocide is one of the most heinous crimes under international law, characterized by acts intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to ensure that such serious crimes do not go unpunished by providing a permanent international judicial body dedicated to holding perpetrators accountable. This role is critical in promoting justice, deterring future atrocities, and affirming the commitment of the international community to uphold human rights and the rule of law. The ICC’s involvement in prosecuting genocide marked a significant development in international criminal justice, addressing impunity where national courts failed to act. This aim of this long essay is to critically examine the effectiveness of the ICC in addressing and prosecuting genocide, identify existing gaps, and propose recommendations for improvement. Utilizing doctrinal methodology, the research analyses legal texts, ICC case laws, and international treaties relevant to genocide prosecution. The essay reveals that while the ICC represents a significant advancement in international criminal law by providing a permanent forum for justice, several gaps hinder its full effectiveness. These include limited jurisdictional reach, challenges to state cooperation, political interference, and delays in the prosecution process. Additionally, the ICC faces difficulties in ensuring victim participation and protection, which are crucial for restorative justice. The study recommends emphasizing strengthening international cooperation to overcome jurisdictional and enforcement challenges, enhancing the Court’s resources and capacity for expedited proceedings, and promoting broader acceptance of ICC jurisdiction through international diplomacy. The study also suggests amplified support for victim rights and witness protection mechanisms to ensure comprehensive justice delivery

This study critically examines the legal framework established for the protection of children’s rights against child labour within the context of human rights law. Despite comprehensive international and national instruments addressing child labour, the issue persists worldwide, undermining children’s development and violating their fundamental rights. This study analyses key international legal instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions No. 138 and 182, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These instruments collectively prohibit exploitative child labour and mandate standards for children’s employment, protection from hazardous work, and access to education. At the national level, the study highlights Nigeria’s legal regime, focusing on the Constitution, the Child Rights Act (CRA) 2003, and the Labour Act. The Constitution enshrines the right to dignity and prohibits forced labour, forming the supreme legal basis for child protection. The Child Rights Act integrates international standards by prohibiting exploitative and hazardous labour for children under 18 and prescribing penalties for violations. The Labour Act complements this framework by setting minimum age requirements and regulating the conditions under which children may be employed, emphasizing protection from harmful work and the preservation of education. The paper examines persistent challenges to effective enforcement, including socio-economic pressures, cultural acceptance of child labour, and limited institutional capacity. Legal ambiguities and weak enforcement mechanisms undermine the full implementation of these protective laws. The study argues that a robust legal framework is insufficient without strengthened enforcement, public awareness, and harmonized legal interpretations. Conclusively, the realization of children’s rights against child labour requires integrated approaches encompassing stringent enforcement of constitutional guarantees, coordinated application of the Labour Act and Child Rights Act, and socio-economic interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of child labour.

State sponsored torture remains a serious human rights concern despite its clear prohibition under international and regional law. In Nigeria and South Africa, reports of torture by state agents, especially police and security personnel, continue to raise questions about respect for human dignity, the rule of law and accountability within state institutions. This study examines state sponsored torture through a comparative analysis of Nigeria and South Africa in order to understand why the practice persists and how both countries have responded to it. The study aims to examine the nature and justification of state sponsored torture and to assess the effectiveness of the legal and institutional frameworks designed to prevent it in Nigeria and South Africa. A doctrinal and comparative research approach is adopted, drawing on legislation, court decisions, international conventions, official reports and relevant academic writings. The study finds that although both countries have formally committed themselves to the prohibition of torture and have put legal safeguards in place, enforcement remains weak in practice. South Africa has recorded more progress, largely due to its strong constitutional culture and oversight mechanisms, while Nigeria continues to struggle with poor implementation of laws, limited accountability for offenders and deep rooted institutional impunity. In both jurisdictions, torture is still commonly justified on the grounds of security, crime control and public order. The study concludes that ending state sponsored torture requires more than legal prohibition. It demands genuine political will, effective oversight of security agencies and a culture of respect for human rights. The study recommends stronger institutional accountability, improved enforcement of existing laws and continuous human rights training as practical steps toward addressing torture in both Nigeria and South Africa

A company, though a legal fiction, operates through the actions and decisions of its shareholders and directors. The provisions of Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 envisage democratic and inclusive processes that reflect on the interests of all shareholders. Yet, in practice, the principle that “the majority have their way and the minority have their say” often results in decisions that prejudice minority shareholders. Unarguably, it is a commonplace to see actions of majority shareholders that contradict the Act or Articles, which in result could be detrimental to the interest of the minority shareholders. Such an illegal practice impedes good corporate governance and could have a company destabilized. The landmark decision in Foss v Harbottle entrenched the majority rule doctrine, which has historically undermined minority rights. By this decision, a minority shareholder, at the expense of his legal right, is subjected to whims and caprice of the directors colluding with majority shareholders. This court decision is met with numberless criticism as it failed to insulate the corporate rights of minority shareholders. Given the wanton injustice suffered by the latter, the letters of CAMA, though, attempts to provide safeguards in exceptional cases, the discretionary power of the court and the procedural hurdles in initiating derivative actions may deter or deny minority shareholders adequate protection. This research critically evaluates the effectiveness of minority protection mechanisms in Nigeria and identifies the legal and institutional loopholes that allow collusion between majority shareholders and company directors. Drawing from comparative corporate law regimes in other jurisdictions, the study recommends reforms aimed at establishing a robust legal, institutional, and third-party framework that better secures the rights and interests of minority shareholder

Medical negligence remains a significant challenge within Nigeria’s healthcare sector, contributing to preventable harm and weakening public confidence in medical practice. This research critically examines the concept of medical negligence, its causes, and the legal frameworks governing healthcare delivery in Nigeria. Using doctrinal research methods, statutes such as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, and relevant case law were analyzed alongside comparative legal approaches from other jurisdictions such as Ghana, the United Kingdom and the United States. The study also identifies systemic challenges such as inadequate medical literacy among patients, weak regulatory enforcement, absence of work-hour regulations for medical practitioners, and infrastructure deficiencies including a low doctor-to-patient ratio. Findings reveal that these factors compound difficulties in seeking redress and contribute to rising cases of medical malpractice. The study recommends strengthening statutory frameworks, improving regulatory oversight, regulating working hours, promoting patient education, and adopting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to enhance accountability and reduce prolonged litigation. This research aims to inform policymakers, legal practitioners, and healthcare stakeholders on actionable reforms to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce medical negligence in Nigeria.