DEPARTMENT OF LAW

Privatization has been a key policy initiative in Nigeria’s economic restructuring, aimed at enhancing efficiency, fostering competition and improving service delivery across vital sectors. Despite these efforts, concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of privatization in achieving its intended objectives. Issues such as regulatory inefficiencies, governance challenges and socio- economic disparities continue to raise questions about the overall success of privatization in Nigeria. This study analysis the efficiency of privatization in Nigeria, specifically focusing on its emerging issue and potential strategic reforms that could maximize its benefits for the nation. This paper relies on legal instruments, government policies, scholarly articles and industry reports to provide a historical and analytical perspective on privatization in Nigeria up to the present day. The study evaluates how privatization has contributed to efficiency, economic growth and improved service delivery while identifying the underlying factors responsible for its shortcomings. Findings from this study reveal some of the emerging issue hindering the success of privatization, including weak regulatory oversight, infrastructural deficits, affordability concerns and social inequalities. The study further explores the broader socio-economic consequences of privatization on businesses and consumers, particularly in terms of accessibility, affordability and quality of service. Based on these findings, the study proposes strategic legal and policy recommendations to enhance the efficiency of privatization, strengthen regulatory frameworks and ensure sustainable economic benefits.

The findings revealed that maritime insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea acts as a severe economic tax on regional trade, forcing shipping companies to incur exorbitant costs for private armed escorts, rerouting vessels, and heightened insurance premiums, costs which are ultimately passed down to West African consumers through inflated commodity prices. Culturally and operationally, the nature of piracy in the region has transitioned from oil cargo theft to high-risk kidnap-for-ransom schemes. On the policy front, the study established that while the Yaoundé Architecture (2013) provided a vital framework for regional cooperation, its full operationalization is heavily hindered by inadequate naval assets, weak intelligence-sharing mechanisms, and varying levels of political will among littoral states. Furthermore, the legal analysis indicated that prior legislative gaps in prosecuting pirates have been significantly improved by landmark domestic laws, such as Nigeria's Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences (SPOMO) Act, though cross-border legal harmonization and jurisdictional boundaries remain complex hurdles.

Despite wide-spread reports of electoral frauds and irregularities in Nigeria, proving same remains a major challenge in Nigerian courts. This study explores the barriers to effectively proving electoral malpractices within the Nigerian political and legal systems. It investigates the institutional, legal, political, and socio-cultural obstacles that hinder the collation, presentation and acceptance of credible evidence in resolution of electoral disputes. The core problem lies in the systemic challenges that make it very difficult for petitioners to provide sufficient evidence to meet the high evidentiary burden required by election tribunals and courts. This research aims to identify and analyze these specific barriers, including procedural obstacles, institutional challenges, and socio-political factors, to understand the barriers to proving electoral malpractices. The methodology adopted for the study is the doctrinal method of research. In doing this, the study examined primary and secondary data which was obtained from scholarly articles, reports of election observer missions, judicial case, and official publications from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The methodology was further developed through a thematic analysis approach, which allowed for a detailed examination of recurring challenges such as evidentiary limitations, influence on electoral tribunals, and the inadequacies of existing legal and institutional frameworks. Findings from the study reveal that the barriers to proving electoral malpractices in Nigeria are multi-dimensional. Legal barriers, such as strict evidentiary requirements and short timelines for litigation, create significant obstacles for petitioners. Institutional challenges, including poorly funded and poorly trained investigative bodies, which further limit the ability to gather credible evidence. Politically, widespread corruption, intimidation, and lack of judicial independence worsen the problem, making it extremely difficult for victims of electoral fraud to obtain justice. The study also identifies key issues such as limited access to reliable evidence, intimidation of witnesses, delays in judicial processes, lack of technological infrastructure, and political interference in legal proceedings as barriers to proving electoral malpractices before the courts in Nigeria. The findings suggest that these barriers not only undermine public trust in the electoral process but also weaken democratic accountability. The study concludes by recommending reforms aimed at strengthening the legal framework, improving evidence-gathering mechanisms, and enhancing the independence of electoral and judicial institutions in Nigeria.

Despite wide-spread reports of electoral frauds and irregularities in Nigeria, proving same remains a major challenge in Nigerian courts. This study explores the barriers to effectively proving electoral malpractices within the Nigerian political and legal systems. It investigates the institutional, legal, political, and socio-cultural obstacles that hinder the collation, presentation and acceptance of credible evidence in resolution of electoral disputes. The core problem lies in the systemic challenges that make it very difficult for petitioners to provide sufficient evidence to meet the high evidentiary burden required by election tribunals and courts. This research aims to identify and analyze these specific barriers, including procedural obstacles, institutional challenges, and socio-political factors, to understand the barriers to proving electoral malpractices. The methodology adopted for the study is the doctrinal method of research. In doing this, the study examined primary and secondary data which was obtained from scholarly articles, reports of election observer missions, judicial case, and official publications from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The methodology was further developed through a thematic analysis approach, which allowed for a detailed examination of recurring challenges such as evidentiary limitations, influence on electoral tribunals, and the inadequacies of existing legal and institutional frameworks. Findings from the study reveal that the barriers to proving electoral malpractices in Nigeria are multi-dimensional. Legal barriers, such as strict evidentiary requirements and short timelines for litigation, create significant obstacles for petitioners. Institutional challenges, including poorly funded and poorly trained investigative bodies, which further limit the ability to gather credible evidence. Politically, widespread corruption, intimidation, and lack of judicial independence worsen the problem, making it extremely difficult for victims of electoral fraud to obtain justice. The study also identifies key issues such as limited access to reliable evidence, intimidation of witnesses, delays in judicial processes, lack of technological infrastructure, and political interference in legal proceedings as barriers to proving electoral malpractices before the courts in Nigeria. The findings suggest that these barriers not only undermine public trust in the electoral process but also weaken democratic accountability. The study concludes by recommending reforms aimed at strengthening the legal framework, improving evidence-gathering mechanisms, and enhancing the independence of electoral and judicial institutions in Nigeria.

Euthanasia, particularly in mental disorders, represents one of the most ethically complex and legally contested issues in contemporary medical jurisprudence. While physical suffering has long been the focus of end-of-life discussions, the recognition of psychological suffering as a legitimate basis for euthanasia introduces new layers of legal, ethical, and human rights considerations. This research critically examines the legal framework governing euthanasia in mental disorder cases, using a comparative approach between Nigeria and the Netherlands two jurisdictions with significantly divergent legal, cultural, and ethical perspectives. The study analyses the statutory and judicial positions on euthanasia in both countries, paying special attention to the criteria for mental competence, the evaluation of consent in psychiatric contexts, and the protections afforded to vulnerable individuals. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legally permitted under strict conditions, even for individuals with psychiatric illnesses, provided that rigorous procedural safeguards are met. In contrast, Nigeria maintains a strict prohibition, with euthanasia treated as a criminal offence under both the Criminal Code and Penal Code, and without any provision for mental health-related exceptions. This research employs doctrinal and comparative methodologies, drawing from legal texts, case law, academic commentaries, and international human rights instruments. It identifies the shortcomings of Nigeria’s current legal stance and explores whether the Dutch model offers adaptable insights for humane and rights-based legal reform. The study ultimately argues for a more nuanced legal framework in Nigeria one that balances the sanctity of life with evolving standards of human dignity, mental health rights, and individual autonomy

This research critically examines the adequacy of the Nigerian legal framework in regulating advertisements that target families, with a particular focus on protecting family values and shielding children from harmful content. In an era where media and marketing profoundly shape societal perceptions and behaviours, advertisements have moved beyond mere commerce to become potent cultural forces. Nigerian families, especially children, are increasingly exposed to advertisement content that promotes materialism, distorts parental roles, encourages early sexualisation, and reinforces unhealthy stereotypes, etc — raising serious moral, psychological, and societal concerns. Despite the existence of regulatory bodies such as the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON), the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), and protective laws like the Child Rights Act and the APCON Code of Advertising Practice, enforcement remains weak, coordination among regulators is inconsistent, and legal provisions often fall short of addressing the unique vulnerabilities of families and children in the digital age. Using a mixed-method approach, this study combines doctrinal analysis of statutes, regulatory frameworks, and case law with empirical data collected through structured interviews and questionnaires administered to parents, legal professionals, educators, and regulatory officers and societal stakeholders. The research draws on the Social Responsibility Theory of the Press and the theory of Legal Paternalism to assess the role of the law in curbing harmful advertisements. It finds that while legal instruments exist, they lack the moral, cultural, and psychological sensitivity required to address the full impact of modern advertising on Nigerian families. The study ultimately recommends legal reform, enhanced media literacy, stronger institutional collaboration, and proactive regulatory strategies aimed at reinforcing societal values, safeguarding children’s mental and moral development, and ensuring that advertising content contributes constructively to the social fabric of the nation. This work contributes to the growing scholarship on media law, family law, and child protection in Nigeria.

Child custody issues are among the most sensitive and complex areas of family law, especially in Nigeria, which has a mixed legal system comprising statutory, customary, and Islamic laws. This study explores Nigeria' s legal framework for child custody, focusing on how laws balance parental rights with the child' s best interests. It is driven by the rising cases of divorce and separation, which have led to more custody disputes often resolved inconsistently due to conflicting legal standards, cultural expectations, and judicial discretion. The research critically examines laws such as the Children's Rights Act 2003 and the Matrimonial Causes Act, as well as relevant constitutional provisions. It also considers how customary and Islamic traditions handle custody, revealing differing philosophies about parental authority and gender roles- traditions often favouring paternal dominance and sometimes undermining mothers' nurturing roles while overlooking the child's emotional, psychological, and developmental needs. This divergence leads to tension between protecting parental rights and adopting a child-centred approach promoted by modern law and international treaties. The study emphasises the ‘best interest of the child’ principle, recognised internationally through instruments like the UNCRC and ACRWC, both ratified by Nigeria. It investigates how Nigerian courts interpret and apply this principle, identifying inconsistencies and instances where it is subordinated to economic, cultural, or religious factors. Using doctrinal legal research, the study reviews key judicial decisions, statutes, and secondary literature to identify strengths and gaps in Nigeria's child custody framework. Findings show that, although Nigerian law claims to prioritise the child's best interests, many decisions are shaped by patriarchal biases, parental wealth, and cultural norms. The lack of social support services, such as child welfare officers and custody evaluators, further hampers effective enforcement of court orders. The study advocates for a harmonised, reform-oriented legal system that emphasises the child's best interests while fairly considering both parents’ rights. Recommendations include integrating social welfare into custody assessments, training judges on childrens rights, and establishing clearer legal guidelines to limit judicial discretion that may conflict with the child's welfare. Overall, this research contributes to ongoing efforts for a more balanced, fair, and child-focused approach to custody in Nigeria. By highlighting the urgency of legal reforms and better judicial practices, it emphasises the need to protect vulnerable children in custody disputes and ensure legal outcomes truly support their well-being, development, and stability.

This research study examines the legal framework governing the juvenile justice system which involves the trial and sentencing practices. It focuses on the comparison between the rehabilitation approach and the punishment approach to the juvenile justice, as well as its impact on young offenders and other children. It further examines whether the modern juvenile trial and sentencing practices tilts towards the rehabilitation approach to juvenile delinquency or not. The juvenile justice system seeks to protect, rehabilitate, and properly reintegrate young offenders into the society. This system includes all operating units- law enforcement, juvenile courts, and correctional centers, operating under specific laws and procedures that have been designed specifically for minors. The system is primarily governed by the Child Rights Act 2003 and also regulated by the Children and Young Persons Act in Nigeria. An overview of the juvenile justice system forms the foundation of the research study as a result of its necessity to the second ambit of the topic- ‘A Legal Analysis of Juvenile Trial and Sentencing Practices’. However, the body of this research study tends to focus more on the comparison between rehabilitation and punishment as well as the impact it has on young offenders and other children, which is particularly the composition of the first ambit of the topic. Accordingly, the work recommends for an enhanced implementation of the rehabilitative approach which obviously will not be beneficial only to the offender but to the society at large.

This research examines the law of defamation in Nigeria, focusing on its causes, effects, and legal implications while comparing it with developments in the United Kingdom and the United States. The study evaluates the tensions between freedom of speech and reputation, the persistence of criminal defamation through instruments such as the Cybercrimes Act, and the emerging intersection with hate speech regulation. It identifies the inadequacies in Nigeria’s defamation framework, particularly the overreach of criminal sanctions, and contrasts them with more speech-protective approaches in other jurisdictions. The research adopts doctrinal and comparative methodologies, relying on statutes, case law, and scholarly commentary. It finds that while defamation law in Nigeria provides essential protection for reputation, its continued criminalization undermines democratic values and freedom of expression. The study concludes by recommending comprehensive reform including the decriminalization of defamation, clearer cyber regulation, and stronger civil remedies that balance reputation with free speech in the digital age.

This study, titled Election Petitions: Towards Curbing Electoral Malpractice in Nigeria, critically examines the role of election petitions in promoting electoral integrity within Nigeria’s democratic framework. Elections, though indispensable to representative government, have been persistently undermined by malpractice, including vote buying, ballot stuffing, intimidation, and falsification of results. The study interrogates whether Nigeria’s system of election petitions is adequate to address these challenges. Using a doctrinal and comparative methodology, the study reviewed constitutional and statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and scholarly works. It analysed the jurisdiction of tribunals and courts, procedures, grounds, timelines, and remedies in electoral adjudication. It also examines electoral offences under the Electoral Act 2022 and how election petitions and criminal prosecution in Nigeria have helped to curb electoral malpractice in Nigeria, and its challenges. The study found that while election petitions are indispensable for resolving disputes and legitimizing elections, they are constrained by heavy evidentiary burdens, strict timelines, judicial technicalities, and high litigation costs. There is also the issue of weak enforcement of electoral offences. Comparative analysis revealed best practices such as Kenya’s emphasis on technology and transparency, as well as Romania and Ghana’s electoral commission accountability, and India’s robust judicial sanctions. The study concludes that Nigeria’s system requires reform to strengthen judicial independence, ease evidentiary burdens, improve INEC’s accountability, and establish an Electoral Offences Commission. Such reforms will enhance the deterrent effect of election petitions, curb malpractice, and consolidate democratic governance.