Nwaka Magdalene OGORDI

This dissertation examines the intricate balance between treatment, rights, and autonomy for persons with psychosocial disabilities within the legal, institutional, and policy frameworks of Nigeria and South Africa. It explores how both countries have responded to the international human rights standards established under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), particularly in relation to the principles of informed consent, legal capacity, non-discrimination, and supported decision-making. The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal research methodology supported by a comparative approach, relying on constitutional provisions, mental health legislation, case law, policy instruments, and academic commentaries to evaluate the extent to which national laws and practices conform to or deviate from global and regional human rights obligations. It finds that although Nigeria and South Africa have both made legislative and policy strides toward protecting the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities, the balance between compulsory treatment and respect for personal autonomy remains deeply problematic. In Nigeria, mental health governance is constrained by outdated laws, weak institutional capacity, and pervasive stigma that justify coercive and custodial models of care. The Mental Health Act, though recently enacted, lacks the necessary mechanisms to ensure informed consent and safeguard against arbitrary detention and treatment. South Africa, on the other hand, has a more advanced legal regime under the Mental Health Care Act 2002, complemented by strong constitutional guarantees and an active judiciary that has recognized the rights and dignity of vulnerable persons. Yet, in practice, the country continues to face challenges of resource limitations, uneven enforcement, and persistent discrimination within mental health facilities. Both jurisdictions demonstrate the tension between medical paternalism and the human rights-based approach envisaged by the CRPD. The research argues that genuine respect for autonomy requires dismantling institutional practices that prioritize control and containment over empowerment and inclusion. It proposes a shift toward supported decision-making frameworks, community-based mental health services, and participatory models that integrate persons with psychosocial disabilities into policy design and implementation. Furthermore, the dissertation emphasizes that the protection of rights cannot be achieved solely through legislative reform but must be supported by adequate funding, awareness campaigns, professional training, and judicial oversight. Comparative analysis reveals that while South Africa offers valuable lessons in legal reform and rights-based policy, Nigeria’s experience underscores the urgent need for implementation strategies tailored to socio-cultural realities and institutional constraints. The study concludes that balancing treatment, rights, and autonomy is not merely a legal or medical issue but a multidimensional challenge that demands collaboration among government institutions, civil society, health professionals, and the affected communities themselves. By integrating comparative insights and human rights perspectives, this dissertation contributes to the growing body of scholarship advocating for the full realization of the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities in Africa. It highlights the necessity of harmonizing domestic mental health laws with international standards and creating sustainable enforcement mechanisms that protect individuals from coercion while ensuring access to quality and compassionate mental health care. Ultimately, the study contends that only through a comprehensive, rights-oriented, and inclusive framework can both Nigeria and South Africa achieve a true balance between necessary treatment interventions and the fundamental autonomy and dignity of persons with psychosocial disabilities.