FACULTY OF LAW

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.

Trade and businesses are among the most regulated sectors of the Nigerian economy. This is not unconnected to the fact that companies and associations have a wide spectre of stakeholders which means that their activities affect beyond just their members but permeates the entire society. Some of these activities over the years become too notorious to be overlooked in the determination of the relevancy of provisions of law to guide the corporate sector; just as in other sectors. Businesses and charitable organizations are monitored from inception to death by a number of bodies guided by extant laws chief of which are the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and the Investment and Securities Act (ISA). Recently, the CAMA was repealed and re-enacted to fortify the old law with the realities of he emerging business world after years of yearnings and criticisms. This work adopts a doctrinal approach in analysing the role of past events in shaping the country’s corporate sector. The paper finds that the major components of Nigeria’s company law as encapsulated especially in the CAMA are major restatements and collection of principles, doctrines and adopted practices that have evolved over the course of history even before Nigeria gained her independence in 1960. Albeit there are already criticisms regarding some provisions in the CAMA, it is on a whole very responsive to the present realities of the corporate sector. The work concludes that whilst there will always be criticisms trailing every law, to which the current company law under the regime of CAMA and ISA is not immune, the benefits of lessons learnt from history are evident in the present state of Nigeria’s company law. The paper finally recommends for a more responsive approach to law making in the corporate sector.

This study critically examines the legal and human rights implications of Nigeria’s
restrictive abortion laws through a tripartite analysis of the competing interests of the
woman, the foetus, and the putative father. The background establishes that Nigeria’s
legal framework, anchored in the Criminal and Penal Codes, is highly prohibitive, permitting abortion only to save the woman's life; this restrictive stance drives the high
incidence of unsafe abortions, contributing significantly to maternal mortality. The
central problem addressed is the profound normative conflict created by the law's
failure to equitably balance the woman's fundamental constitutional rights against the
moral and legal status of the foetus and the social and relational interests of the
putative father. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative methodology, the research
systematically analyzed Nigerian statutes, constitutional provisions, judicial precedents
like Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo, and international
obligations, notably the Maputo Protocol. Findings confirm that the Nigerian framework
is contradictory: while the woman holds explicit, justiciable constitutional rights to life,
dignity, and autonomy, the foetus holds the status of potential life, and the father
possesses no legal right to veto. The study concludes that the law is fundamentally
unbalanced and in direct conflict with Nigeria's binding international human rights
commitments. To achieve a coherent legal framework, the research recommends
legislative modernization to align penal laws with Article 14(2)(c) of the Maputo Protocol (legalizing abortion for rape, incest, and health risk), urgent judicial activism to
interpret constitutional rights expansively, and statutory recognition of the biological
father’s moral and relational interest through veto consultation, safeguarded by
exceptions for domestic violence.

Environmental pollution is a global concern, with Nigeria being one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases due to its crude oil production. Environmental degradation has led to adverse socio-economic impacts, including population displacement, reduced agricultural productivity, and health hazards. While several regulatory frameworks exist to combat environmental pollution, including the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and the Climate Change Act, they are hindered by fragmented enforcement mechanisms. A significant barrier to environmental rights enforcement in Nigeria is the constitutional limitation under Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, which renders environmental rights non-justiciable. This limitation prevents individuals and communities from seeking legal redress for environmental harm. However, proponents argue that environmental rights remain enforceable under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as recognized in cases such as Fawehinmi v Abacha and Gbemre v SPDC. This study examines the challenges posed by locus standi in environmental litigation, which restricts access to justice for affected individuals and communities. It explores the need for a broader interpretation of standing, as adopted in other jurisdictions, to enhance environmental accountability. The research findings reveal that Nigeria’s environmental regulatory framework, though robust in scope, suffers from weak implementation and judicial conservatism. The study advocates for constitutional amendments to recognize environmental rights as justiciable, alongside procedural reforms to ease access to courts. Strengthening judicial interpretation, promoting public interest litigation, and aligning national laws with international environmental treaties are recommended. Ultimately, this research underscores the necessity of a legal framework that ensures environmental justice, safeguards human rights, and fosters sustainable development in Nigeria

This research critically examines Nigeria's legal and institutional responses to gender-based violence against women and femicide, evaluating the effectiveness of criminal law and human rights enforcement mechanisms. Despite progressive legislation including the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 and ratification of international instruments like CEDAW and the Maputo Protocol, systemic institutional failure persists across all levels of Nigeria's justice system. The research identifies interconnected challenges undermining enforcement: chronic resource constraints, deeply embedded patriarchal attitudes among criminal justice actors, pervasive corruption, victim withdrawal under social pressure, geographic inconsistencies in law implementation, inadequate data systems, and insufficient survivor support infrastructure. While civil society organizations like Mirabel Centre, WARIF, and STER have provided essential services to thousands of survivors, these successes remain isolated rather than systematic. The findings reveal a profound gap between law and reality that constitutes a moral failure, yet demonstrate that effective responses are achievable when political will, adequate resources, and coordinated action align. This research concludes that Nigerian women have waited long enough for justice, and that Nigeria possesses the capacity to do better if it makes the necessary political choices and resource commitments. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, "Violence against women is not inevitable"—it is a choice Nigeria can make differently.

The Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is one of the most critical institutions responsible for maintaining law and order, protecting lives and property, and ensuring internal security. However, over the years, the Force has faced persistent allegations of power abuse, corruption, human rights violations, and institutional inefficiency. The aim of this research was to critically analyze the abuse of power by the Nigeria Police Force and assess the effectiveness of legal and institutional frameworks in preventing such abuses. The study examined the formation, historical evolution, and structural organization of the NPF, alongside its statutory powers, functions, and duties as defined under Nigerian law. By providing a foundational understanding of how the institution evolved, the research contextualized the systemic weaknesses that have contributed to recurrent cases of police misconduct across different regions in Nigeria. Through the doctrinal research methodology, the study analyzed relevant statutory and constitutional provisions governing police conduct in Nigeria, including the Police Act 2020, the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and other enabling laws. It further explored the nature, scope, and forms of police power abuse, such as extrajudicial killings, unlawful arrests, detention, and extortion. The research also investigated the root causes of these abuses, identifying factors such as inadequate oversight, poor training, weak disciplinary mechanisms, political interference, and institutional corruption. For comparative insight, the study briefly examined the policing systems in the United States, focusing on mechanisms of accountability, civilian oversight, and transparency to assess potential lessons applicable to the Nigerian context. The study also revealed that despite the existence of constitutional and institutional safeguards, the frameworks for regulating and monitoring police conduct in Nigeria remain largely ineffective. The absence of a robust accountability structure, combined with systemic corruption and political influence, has undermined public trust and encouraged a culture of impunity within the Force. The study recommended comprehensive reforms aimed at strengthening institutional accountability, enhancing human rights training, and ensuring the operational independence of oversight bodies such as the Police Service Commission and the National Human Rights Commission. It concluded that adopting a rights-based and institutionally accountable approach to policing would help restore public confidence and promote a more transparent, professional, and humane Nigeria Police Force

This study examined the societal implications of the criminalisation of abortion in Ugbowo Community, Benin Metropolis and also weighed the responses of the people on this legal standpoint, relying on the sociological jurisprudential theory of Law and the person-centred theory in Medicine. Using a mixed sampling technique and a descriptive cross-sectional research design, data were obtained from 221 community residents and workers, which include youths (students and non-students), medical practitioners, medical students, legal practitioners, traders and others all within the area of study. Descriptive findings showed high level of legal of awareness about the criminalisation of abortion in the community, with 87.3% correctly identifying abortion as criminalised in Nigeria. Despite this high awareness, most respondents argued that the current Laws are inadequate and ambiguous, therefore calling for liberalization. Respondents further recognized strong sociocultural influences, with 90.5% agreeing that cultural and religious factors shape community attitudes towards abortion practices. Therefore, even though many condemn it publicly, they procure it behind the scene and obviously, in the unsafe manner. Findings also revealed that criminalisation has significant societal and health implications. A combined 84.6% believed that restrictive Laws push women toward unsafe practices, while 80.2% associated criminalisation with broader social challenges such as single parenting, out-of-school children and socio-economic problems. Access to safe abortion and reproductive healthcare was perceived as substantially constrained by the abortion restrictive provisions, with 74.7% affirming that the Law prevents medical personnel from offering safe abortion which have been medically proven to be of little to no risk. Inferential statistics confirmed that legal awareness significantly influence societal responses about abortion discourse. It also confirmed that criminalisation significantly contributes to unsafe abortion practices and negative outcomes in the community, therefore access to safe abortion will significantly increase better health and well-being outcomes of women who procure abortion, and to achieve this, the Law needs to be liberalized. Medically-related findings were equally compelling. An overwhelming majority (91%) agreed that unsafe abortion contributes to maternal mortality and 94.6% affirmed that the health consequences of unsafe abortion are severe and long-lasting. Stakeholders’ perspectives analysis revealed significant gender differences in perspectives, meaning that men and women do not support abortion liberalization at the same rate while medical and legal practitioners showed no statistically significant differences in their views, meaning both groups broadly supported abortion liberalization. Overall, the findings demonstrated that criminalisation neither reduces abortion incidence nor protects women’s health, but instead increases underground procurement, unsafe practices and harmful social outcomes. The study recommends legal clarification especially for medical practitioners who are still uncertain about the extent of the Law, hence scared of legal repercussions, broadened indications for safe abortion beyond the exception of ‘to preserve the mother’s life’, strengthened reproductive health services, and evidence-based Law reform channeled towards the reality of the people.

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.

Humans are fickle and their actions even more wobbling by the transient nature of the world. Ergo, their acts are regulated by laws, short of these laws, their acts become an abnormality to society- crimes! And in the world of criminal law culpability and compassion must intersect for justice to be done as well as seen done. Accordingly, this research rigorously examines the intertwined doctrines of excuse and justification as defences within Nigerian criminal law, illuminating their pivotal role in balancing societal order with individual autonomy. Framed within the complexities of Nigeria’s plural legal system, The Architecture of Excuse and Justification explores how the law, stern yet humane, negotiates the delicate equilibrium between societal order and individual autonomy. A novel inquiry in the Nigerian Criminal law sphere! Justification, on the one hand as examined, sanctifies conduct deemed necessary or right in its circumstances albeit in self-defence, defence of property or lawful correction, each showing the law’s pragmatic embrace of moral duty and public good. Excuse, on the other hand, humbles the majesty of law before the frailty of the human spirit, excusing acts wrought by insanity, provocation, duress, or honest mistake, where culpability wanes though wrong remains. This work is pivotal as it exposes doctrinal ambiguities, statutory inconsistencies, and judicial challenges in clearly delineating these defences, further complicated by cultural, religious, and pluralistic influences that shape application and interpretation. Drawing on comparative perspectives from multiple jurisprudence, the study posits that Nigeria’s criminal law must evolve through comprehensive codification, enhanced judicial training, and institutional support. It reaffirms the law’s highest calling to punish with justice, to excuse with reason, and to justify with conscience. Ultimately, this work contends that the vitality of criminal law depends not only on punishing the guilty but on understanding why and when it must refrain