JUSTICE

This research conducts a critical examination of Sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which confer discretionary prosecutorial powers upon the Attorney-General of the Federation and the States. Additionally, it evaluates the broader constitutional protection afforded under Section 36(10), which safeguards individuals against double jeopardy. These provisions raise pressing inquiries regarding the equilibrium between executive discretion and the principles of justice, accountability, and fair hearings within Nigeria’s criminal justice system. The study investigates whether the extensive authority vested in the Attorney-General to initiate, pursue, or terminate criminal proceedings, particularly through nolle prosequi, has been exercised in accordance with the rule of law or has instead devolved into a mechanism for political interference and elite protection. This inquiry is contextualized within a conceptual and theoretical framework that examines justice (retributive, restorative, and distributive), prosecutorial discretion, and the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. Employing doctrinal and analytical legal research methodologies, the study delineates the historical evolution of the Attorney- General’s office and the development of prosecutorial discretion in Nigerian constitutional law. Furthermore, it discusses judicial interpretations of these provisions in landmark cases such as State v. Ilori, Abacha v. State, Usman v. FRN, Mohammed v. State, and FRN v. Osahon & Ors, revealing a concerning tendency of judicial deference that could potentially facilitate the abuse of prosecutorial authority. Section 36(10) is scrutinized as a constitutional guarantee of finality in criminal trials, which precludes multiple prosecutions for the same offense, thereby preserving the integrity of criminal adjudication. Nonetheless, this safeguard is frequently undermined when prosecutorial discretion is misused to arbitrarily terminate trials, denying victims’ closure and eroding public trust in the justice system. The study concludes that, although Sections 174, 211, and 36(10) each fulfill significant constitutional functions, their interactions must be meticulously overseen to prevent distortions of justice. Recommendations encompass the establishment of clearer statutory guidelines, judicial oversight of prosecutorial decisions, and institutional checks to avert the risk of discretion devolving into impunity. This work contributes to ongoing deliberations concerning democratic accountability, prosecutorial ethics, and the reformation of Nigeria’s criminal justice framework

This study was a critical study of how domestic violence is handled in Nigeria through the criminal justice system, evaluation of the legal institutions, institutional processes, and cultural/socio-cultural factors that guide the handling and adjudication of domestic violence laws in Nigeria. The results suggest that despite significant legislative progress, especially with the Violence Against Persons ( Prohibition ) Act (VAPP) 2015, significant implementation issues are present because the federal system has led to unequal domestication across states, which generates a patchwork of protection and legal pluralism that leads to discrepancies in jurisdictions. The study shows much discrepancy between the international human rights commitments of Nigeria and their implementation at the local level, particularly on matters of marital rape, emotional and harmful traditional practices. The paper also indicates institutional flaws such as the attitude of police that sees domestic violence as family affairs, lack of special domestic violence courts, and lack of victim support services, which are centralized in urban centres. Patriarchal norms, religious pressures of family conservation, bride price, and gender stereotypes of roles were considered as deep-rooted socio-cultural forces that strengthened silence, victim-blaming and economic dependence. Comparing the advantages of the United States, the study determines the advantages in specialized domestic violence courts, mandatory arrest policies, comprehensive victim support systems, batterer intervention, and coordinated responses of the community through VAWA. The report suggests the harmonization of the VAPP Act across the nation, the creation of special courts, training of the justice actors in a broad way, increasing support systems to victims, and cultural transformation programs. It concludes that though Nigeria has developed a good legal framework, there is still a huge discrepancy between the law and the practice, which requires more institution capacity, proper resource allocation, and social transformation to make a significant difference in protection of all victims.