FACULTY OF LAW

The dissolution of statutory marriage in Nigeria is governed by the Matrimonial Causes Act, which recognises irretrievable breakdown of marriage but still requires proof of fault facts. This requirement has generated significant legal and practical challenges, particularly in relation to desertion, which remains one of the most technical and contentious fault facts. Desertion consists of the willful and unjustified cessation of matrimonial cohabitation by one spouse without consent, reasonable cause, and with the intention of permanently terminating cohabitation. This study examines the problems of fault facts in the dissolution of statutory marriage in Nigeria, with a specific focus on desertion. The objectives of the study are to examine the conceptual and theoretical foundations of marriage and its dissolution, analyse the legal and institutional framework governing dissolution of statutory marriage in Nigeria, and critically evaluate desertion as a fault fact, including its elements, statutory requirements, and evidential challenges. The study further assesses judicial attitudes and relevant case law on desertion, as well as the broader implications of a fault-based divorce regime. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology, relying on statutory provisions, judicial decisions, textbooks, and scholarly literature. The study finds that the technical requirements for proving desertion, particularly animus deserendi and the absence of justification, often frustrate genuine claims and prolong irretrievably broken marriages. It concludes by recommending a reconsideration of the continued reliance on fault facts under Nigerian matrimonial law in favour of a more flexible and realistic approach to marital breakdown.

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.

The digital revolution has fundamentally transformed the landscape of evidence in legal proceedings worldwide, with Nigeria taking a decisive step forward through the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023. This research examines the evolving role of digital evidence in Nigerian courts, focusing on the critical issues of admissibility and credibility within the framework of the newly amended Evidence Act. The study addresses the transformative impact of sections 84A-84D, which revolutionized how electronic records, digital signatures, and computer-generated documents are treated in judicial proceedings. Prior to the 2023 amendments, Nigerian courts grappled with significant challenges in authenticating and admitting digital evidence under the restrictive provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011. The landmark case of Atiku Abubakar v. Muhammadu Buhari exemplified these challenges, where the Supreme Court struggled with the admissibility of electronic voting records and server-generated data. This research investigates how the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023 addresses these longstanding issues while establishing new standards for digital evidence credibility. The study employs doctrinal analysis, comparative jurisprudence, and empirical research methodologies to examine the practical implications of Nigeria's modernized digital evidence framework. Key findings reveal that while the 2023 amendments significantly enhance the admissibility of electronic records, challenges remain in ensuring credibility, particularly regarding authentication protocols and technical expertise requirements within the judiciary. This research contributes to legal scholarship by providing the first comprehensive analysis of Nigeria's reformed digital evidence regime, offering practical guidance for legal practitioners, and proposing recommendations for effective implementation of the new legislative framework

Digital assets and crypto-currencies have become transformative forces in modern finance. Bitcoin, introduced in 2009, marked the inception of decentralized digital currencies, paving the way for thousands of crypto-currencies and block-chain based projects. However, their growth has also raised questions about their legal classification, regulatory oversight, and implications for global economies. Legal systems worldwide grapple with defining digital assets and crypto-currencies due to their hybrid nature part currency, part commodity, and part security. As these assets proliferate, the lack of uniformity in their treatment creates regulatory gaps and risks, necessitating adaptive models that can respond to technological innovation while protecting market participants1. The legal and regulatory framework for crypto-currency and digital assets in Nigeria is undergoing significant transformation as the country seeks to leverage the potential of these technologies while addressing associated risks. Amidst a backdrop of rising interest and participation in crypto-currency evidenced by Nigeria's position as a leading nation in Africa for crypto-currency searche2, this evolving landscape has prompted the government and regulatory bodies to rethink existing legal structures and introduce new guidelines to foster innovation and protect consumers.

Sexual slavery has emerged as a critical human rights issue within the broader context of insurgency in Nigeria, particularly in the northeastern region where Boko Haram and other armed groups have operated with relative impunity. The use of sexual slavery by insurgents is not incidental but systematic and strategic. Women and girls are abducted, held against their will, and subjected to repeated sexual violence, forced marriages, and domestic servitude. These actions amount to crimes under both Nigerian law and international humanitarian and human rights law. Despite this, the prosecution of perpetrators remains limited due to a range of legal, institutional, and socio-cultural hurdles. This study examines the intersection between sexual slavery and insurgency in Nigeria, with a focus on the barriers to effective prosecution. It identifies key legal and procedural gaps in Nigerian criminal law, including the lack of explicit provisions for prosecuting sexual slavery as a distinct crime and the inadequacy of victim protection mechanisms during legal proceedings. This study also explores the challenges posed by insecurity in conflict zones, lack of forensic infrastructure, poor case documentation, and limited capacity of law enforcement to gather evidence or secure witness testimony. These problems are compounded by political interference, corruption, and the prevailing stigma faced by survivors, which discourages reporting and cooperation with legal authorities. This study evaluates existing domestic and international legal frameworks, including the Nigerian Criminal Code, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act of 2015, and Nigeria’s obligations under international instruments such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. While these instruments provide a foundation for prosecution, implementation remains weak due to gaps in domestic incorporation and enforcement. The study argues for urgent legal reform, improved institutional coordination, and the development of survivor-centered justice mechanisms. It also recommends the establishment of specialized investigative and prosecutorial units trained in conflict-related sexual violence. Addressing these barriers is essential to breaking the cycle of impunity, ensuring justice for victims, and restoring public trust in the legal system. Without concrete prosecutorial outcomes, efforts to combat insurgency and promote long-term peace and security in Nigeria will remain incomplete.

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.

This study examines the Use of Force in Public International Law, the prohibition of the use of force as provided for in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and the exceptions to the use of force as provided for in Article 51 of the Charter. It also examines the non-state actors— Hezbollah’s and Houthi’s attacks against the State of Israel, the unwillingness of the Governments of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen to address those attacks, and the State of Israel’s right to self-defense which includes preemptive strikes and preventive strategies with focus on the State of Israel’s legitimate rights to resort to the use of armed force guaranteed by the principle of jus ad bellum. The significance of the Caroline Test in Customary International Law, the Bethlehem Principles, and state practice as justifications for the State of Israel’s anticipatory/preemptive attacks against Lebanon, Yemen and the Islamic Republic of Iran. By carefully examining the fundamental principles provided for in the United Nations Charter and customary international law, this study aims to explore the key requirements that must be satisfied before a given state can legally resort to anticipatory/preemptive self-defense. The concept of anticipatory/preemptive self-defense under Public International Law has always been contentious and controversial, however, in the aftermath of the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001, the principle has become even more controversial, as the US President, Bush adopted a new national security strategy. Consequently, the Bush administration contended that the United States “must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries… the greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.” 1The debate as to whether anticipatory/preemptive self-defense is legally justified is largely dependent on the understanding of the contemporary dynamics of Public International Law, as there has been a clear shift from what was obtainable at the Charter was adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that the resort to anticipatory/preemptive military action without a corresponding imminent threat is unlawful and unjustified, however, if the extant legal framework as provided for by the United Nations Charter does no longer precisely reflect the current Public International Law, then it would be argued that resort to anticipatory/preemptive self-defense may, in fact be lawful, though politically unwise.2The focus of this study is to evaluate through doctrinal legal research, analysis of critical international jurisprudence, state practice, and the analysis of case study the extent to which the State of Israel’s anticipatory/preemptive self-defense complies with the well-established rules of Public International Law as it pertains to international peace and security which are fundamental to the objectives of the United Nations Charter. Further, it critically examines the doctrine of anticipatory/preemptive use of force against the backdrops of contemporary threats of the acquisition of nuclear weapons, terrorism, proxy warfare, drone and missile attacks.