KESEME PHILIP ODUDU

Cross-border child maintenance has become an increasingly complex legal issue as rising migration, international marriages and family breakdowns create situations where a parent resides outside the jurisdiction responsible for enforcing a child’s right to maintenance. Although international instruments such as the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1990 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child affirm this right, enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly in Nigeria. The central problem addressed in this study is the persistent gap between the legal recognition of child maintenance as a right and the practical ability of custodial parents to enforce that right when the obligor lives abroad. The aim of this study is to critically assess the international, regional, and domestic frameworks governing the cross-border enforcement of child maintenance, with particular reference to Nigeria. Using a doctrinal method based on statutes, case law, treaties, and academic literature, the paper examines the extent to which Nigerian law accommodates international obligations and identifies legal, procedural, and institutional obstacles. Findings show that Nigeria’s dualist approach to treaty ratification limits the domestic effect of international maintenance conventions, including the Hague 2007 Child Support Convention. Although domestic laws such as the Child Rights Act and Matrimonial Causes Act provide strong protections, they lack cross-border applicability. Additionally, the absence of a central authority, limited judicial expertise in private international law, bureaucratic delays, gendered socio-economic inequalities, and fragmented mechanisms for enforcing foreign judgments pose challenges. The study recommends comprehensive reforms, including domestication of relevant conventions, creation of a central enforcement authority, harmonisation of family laws, enhanced judicial capacity, and gender-responsive mechanisms to safeguard children’s financial rights across borders.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aims to enhance economic integration and intra-African trade by removing barriers to the free movement of people, services, and goods. However, the fact that there are still armed conflicts in various regions of the continent poses a serious threat to the success and achievement of this regional trade regime. This essay examines the impact of armed conflict on regional integration of trade in Africa, focusing on legal and pragmatic inconsistencies between AfCFTA and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) rules. The essay examines how conflicts impact trade corridors, infrastructure, and markets, thereby undermining the objectives of the AfCFTA. It also explores whether and how the legal orders governing trade and war (i.e., the AfCFTA Agreement and IHL treaties such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977) interact, intersect, or conflict in practice. The essay considers the state and non-state parties' obligations under the law of hostilities, notably on the protection of civilian infrastructure related to trade and humanitarian protection.