Our Rights

DO YOU ACTUALLY OWN YOUR LAND?
Many people assume that when they buy a piece of land, hand over their money, and start building, they have acquired that part of the earth forever. The legal reality is quite different. Under the Land Use Act, all land within a state is held in trust by the Governor for the common benefit of all citizens. This means the state acts as the ultimate custodian, while individual citizens acquire a legal title known as a Right of Occupancy, typically granted for a 99-year term. You do not own the earth itself in perpetuity; rather, you hold a legally recognized right to occupy, use, and enjoy the property.

Understanding this distinction protects your financial investments and prevents costly mistakes. While the government manages the underlying land title, you fully own any houses, structures, or improvements you erect on that land. However, because the state holds the ultimate trusteeship, you cannot legally sell, mortgage, or transfer your Right of Occupancy without obtaining official Governor's Consent. At the same time, this framework protects you against arbitrary government actions. The state cannot take back or revoke your right of occupancy on a whim; revocation can only occur for valid, legally defined public interest reasons, and the law guarantees that you are entitled to prompt and adequate compensation when it happens. Ultimately, you acquire a secure, legally protected Right of Occupancy that empowers you to build, live, and prosper safely within the full protection of the law.

HUMANE TREATMENT ISN’T A FAVOUR — IT’S THE LAW.

Being arrested does not strip a person of their dignity or fundamental rights.
Under Section 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, a suspect is entitled to humane and dignified treatment. Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not made lawful simply because a person has been arrested or accused of an offence.

What happens to a person’s rights between the moment of arrest and the moment of trial?
The answer is simple: They do not disappear.

A suspect is not a convict. An allegation is not a conviction. And lawful detention is not a licence for abuse.

Know your rights. Demand accountability. Defend human dignity.

Should a person accused of even the most serious offence ever be subjected to degrading treatment while in custody? What are your thoughts!

The illegal tactic of "Arrest in Lieu" remains one of the most widespread violations of personal liberty in Nigeria.
​Imagine officers knocking on your door at 2 AM searching for your brother. When you inform them he doesn't live there, they tell you: "Since we can't find him, you are coming with us until he shows up." This tactic known in legal terms as Arrest in Lieu is not just unfair; it is illegal.

​Now let us face the Reality vs. What the Law said.
​The Reality: For decades, law enforcement agencies have used family members, spouses, and business associates as human bait. By holding an innocent proxy in a cell, officers exert psychological pressure on the actual suspect to turn themselves in.

​The Legal Fact: Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 explicitly states:
​"A person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect."
​Criminal responsibility under Nigerian law is strictly personal. You cannot bear the burden of an offense committed by someone else simply because you share a surname, a house, or a marriage certificate.
​Police Act 2020 (Section 36): Echoes Section 7 of the ACJA, making it a statutory violation for police officers to detain anyone as a surrogate suspect.

​ If An Officer Threatens an "Arrest in Lieu"
​Demand the Warrant: Ask for the arrest warrant and ensure your name is explicitly written on it. An arrest warrant is personal to the named individual.
​State Section 7 of ACJA 2015: Calmly quote the law. Let the officers know you understand that arresting a proxy is an illegal act under Nigerian law.
​Contact a Lawyer Immediately: If taken into custody, do not sign any statement. Request to call your lawyer.
​Victims of proxy arrest can sue the agency for enforcement of fundamental human rights, unlawful detention, and monetary damages.

"The Right to Remain Silent Is Real (and the Police Must Tell You)"
Myth: Refusing to talk to the police is "obstruction."
Fact: Section 6 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 says a suspect has the right to remain silent, or avoid answering, until they've spoken to a lawyer or another person of their choice. The police are obligated to inform you of this the moment you're arrested.

ACJA 2015, s.6. Applies federally and in the FCT; some states run their own Administration of Criminal Justice Law with similar wording — check yours.
Caption: "Did you know the police must tell you this the moment they arrest you? Tag someone who needs to see this. "

Keep Police Out of Civil Contractual Disputes.

In Nigeria, it's common to see parties involved in contractual disputes rushing to police stations to report cases that are essentially civil in nature. This practice is not only unnecessary but also an abuse of the criminal justice system. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Police Act 2020, and the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) all support the notion that contractual disputes without criminal elements should be resolved through civil litigation, not criminal investigation.

Consens ad idem (meeting of the minds) and voluntariness are the foundation of contracts. When parties fail to adhere to contractual terms, it's a civil matter that requires a legal solution, not police intervention. Involving the police in such disputes not only wastes valuable resources but also leads to harassment, intimidation, and potential human rights violations. Let's keep our police focused on combating real crimes and resolve contractual disputes through the appropriate civil channels.

The Police Act 2020, in Section 4(2), states that the police shall not investigate or interfere with any matter that is essentially civil in nature. Similarly, Section 5(3) of the same Act provides that a police officer shall not arrest or detain anyone for a civil wrong or breach of contract. The Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) also supports this stance in Section 34(1), which guarantees the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, which can be violated by police interference in civil matters.

Furthermore, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, in Section 2, states that the Act shall apply to all criminal cases and not to civil matters. Section 12 of the same Act also provides that a suspect shall not be arrested or detained for a crime that is not specified under any written law. In essence, contractual disputes without criminal elements do not fall within the purview of the police or the criminal justice system.

In light of these provisions, it is essential to stop involving the police in contractual disputes that do not have any atom of criminality. Instead, parties should seek legal solutions through civil litigation, mediation, or arbitration. By doing so, we can prevent the abuse of the criminal justice system, protect human rights, and ensure that our police focus on combating real crimes.

J.C. Ekeleme Esq.

What are the limitations to the right to life?

The right to life, as provided for in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, is subject to certain limitations, as outlined in various laws, including the 2020 Police Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Some limitations include:

Self-defense and Defense of Others:
The use of force resulting in the loss of life may be justified in cases of self-defense or defense of others when there is an imminent threat of harm.

Ex*****on of Death Penalty:
The imposition of the death penalty by a competent court for certain crimes constitutes a limitation on the right to life.

Lawful Use of Force by Law Enforcement:
Law enforcement officers may use force, including lethal force, in accordance with the law to maintain public order, prevent crime, and protect lives.

War and Armed Conflict:
During times of war or armed conflict, the right to life may be limited in accordance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war.

Medical Intervention:
In certain circumstances, medical interventions such as euthanasia or termination of pregnancy may be permitted under specific legal and medical conditions.

These limitations are designed to balance the right to life with other competing interests, such as public safety, national security, and the administration of justice. It's essential to ensure that any limitations imposed on the right to life are necessary, proportionate, and consistent with international human rights standards.

As a Nigeria citizen, it is important to understand the rights of citizens as provided for in the 1999 Constitution. These Rights are sacrosanct and guaranteed, therefore any law in Nigeria that contradicts their provisions would as a result of that become null and void. However, some limitations to the enjoyment of these Rights has also been provided for also in the constitution. We would examine these Rights one after the other. The Rights includes:

1. Right to Life.(Section 33)

2. Right to dignity of human persons.(Section 34)

3. Right to personal liberty. (Section 35)

4. Right to fair hearing. (Section 36)

5. Right to private and family life.(Section 37)

6. Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. (Section 38)

7. Right to freedom of expression and the press. (Section 39)

8. Right to peaceful assembly and association.(Section 40)

9. Right to freedom of movement. (Section 41)

10. Right to freedom from discrimination.(Section 42)

11. Right to acquire and own immovable property. (Section 43)

These Rights can be referred to as Fundamental Rights.

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), must take these various steps to ensure that Nigerians always have a successful elections. It is the duty of citizens to ensure that these points layed out here are adhered to strictly by the Chairman and members of the commission.

1. Enhance Voter Education: Implement robust voter education campaigns to ensure citizens understand their rights and responsibilities during the electoral process.

2. Ensure Transparency: Maintain transparency in all electoral processes, including voter registration, candidate selection, and ballot counting, to build trust among voters and stakeholders.

3. Strengthen Security: Collaborate with relevant security agencies to provide adequate security measures before, during, and after the elections to safeguard voters, polling stations, and electoral materials.

4. Improve Voter Registration: Implement measures to increase voter registration rates, including mobile registration centers, online registration options, and outreach programs targeting marginalized communities.

5. Enhance Technology: Utilize technology to improve the efficiency and transparency of electoral processes, such as electronic voter verification systems and results transmission platforms.

6. Ensure Fairness: Enforce strict regulations to prevent electoral malpractices, including vote buying, intimidation, and manipulation of results, to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and political parties.

7. Foster Stakeholder Collaboration: Work closely with political parties, civil society organizations, the media, and international observers to promote dialogue, collaboration, and adherence to electoral guidelines.

8. Implement Electoral Reforms: Advocate for and implement necessary electoral reforms to address systemic challenges, enhance accountability, and improve the overall integrity of the electoral process.

By prioritizing these actions, I believe they can contribute to the success of free, fair, and credible elections in Nigeria...!

Who is Qualified to Be a Delegate in Indirect Primary?

By Sam Amadi

As expected, many of the leading parties have decided that they would use the indirect mode of primary for the election of their presidential candidates. This seems to be the default mode for both the PDP and the APC. The APC has tried the direct mode of primary election with disastrous consequences. In its 2018 presidential primary, President Buhari was elected with ten of millions of votes of members. But at the presidential election, less than a year, he could not poll up to half of those tens of millions of votes. We saw the same result in Anambra State in the 2021 gubernatorial primaries and election. Clearly, the mechanics of Direct Primary as outlined in the Electoral Act is such that a poorly organized political party cannot manage it at this point in the evolution of electoral democracy without quick improvement in its administrative efficiency. Hence the resort to Indirect Primary.

The problem is that the indirect mode of primary is not as easy or routine as the managers of these parties may presume. The tradition in the PDP and the APC has been to define delegates for an indirect primary as basically officials and other former political leaders of party. This would include members of the National Working Committee (NWC), State Working Committees (SWCs), Local Government Pary Chairman and Woman Leaders, the President, the Vice President, Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of state assemblies and the likes. This restricted definition suited the previous legal regime of elections. But the new electoral law has changed the game. But the problem is that the leadership of the parties are playing by the old rule.

The new electoral law is focused on regulating democracy. It builds from the experiences of the past where political leaders converted party primaries into a drama of self-serving politics. They harrowed out democratic accountability in the manner their parties chose their candidates for elective offices. They found support and sanctuary in the Supreme Court’s reluctance to reverse the decision of party leadership on the choice of their candidates. The Supreme Court argues rightly that it is the party not the court that determines the choice of candidates. And when the party leadership has made that choice, the court should not reverse it. The caveat in these decisions is that the party leadership followed the electoral law and the party’s constitution in choosing the candidates.

The new electoral law has changed the game by spelling out clearly how the parties should conduct primary. At the heart of this legal change is the requirement that candidates of the parties for elective offices should be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. This phrase could prove the undoing of the political parties that have easily resorted to Indirect Primary for the election of their presidential candidates for the 2023 elections. Section 84 (4) provides that when a party chooses Direct Primary to elect its candidates for elective offices, it must ensure that all REGISTERED Party members vote for the candidates at the wards. It is the widest articulation of ‘DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. Such a candidate who emerges from the votes of all registered party members at the wards across the country is democratically elected. For a party that chooses to use Indirect Primary to elect its candidates, Section 84(5) requires such party to choose as presidential candidate the aspirant who receives the highest number of votes of the DELEGATES at a national convention of the party.

The crux of the matter is how to determine who becomes a delegate to the Indirect Primary. The Electoral Act makes an express provision on who becomes a DELEGATE to an Indirect Primary. Section 84(8) of the Act expressly provides that “A party that adopts the system of indirect primary for the choice of its candidate shall clearly outline in its constitution and rule the procedure for the democratic election of delegates to vote at the convention, congress or meeting”. The important phrase is ‘democratic election’. The only valid interpretation of this section is that only delegates elected democratically can vote for a presidential aspirant to become its candidate in a convention or primary. This means that the party is required to make rules that show how the delegates emerge from democratic election. This knocks off the so-called statutory delegates except as they are specially elected democratically for the purpose of electing a presidential candidate. Clearly, the provision invalidates such so-called ‘delegates’ that are former political office holders including former Presidents, former Governors, etc.

This reading of Section 84 is radical, but it is the properly reading in the contexts of the challenges of party democracy in Nigeria and the history of the use of the leadership power in the party to undermine the democratic rights of party members. Whereas democracy is premised on the political equality of citizens, the asymmetry of power within the party threatens the survival of democracy in Nigeria. Godfathers and moneybags have taken over the parties and routinely use the main parties to foist on citizens a fait accompli that destroys even the pretense of democracy. Without democracy in the internal management of party affairs, the idea of democracy as the basic right of the people to effectively participate in choosing those to be entrusted with political power of the state to make decision on the use of public resources will be nugatory.

The legislative history of the Electoral Act 2022 shows that it was enacted to end the perverse situation where the process of electing candidates for elective offices was underspecified and left largely to the discretion of party leaders. The legislative history further shows a determination to regulate Nigeria’s political process to institutionalize the norms of democracy in obligations that are judicially reviewable. This determination shows in the many innovative provisions to replace the opaque and judicially unmanaged provisions in the past versions of the electoral law. The new electoral law gives the election management body more powers to override decisions of party officials that violate tenets of electoral democracy. It also obligates the party to conform to fundamentals of electoral democracy, especially the protection of the right of choice of party members.

This legislative perspective is also aligned to the development of electoral law and democratic theory across the world. Political parties are central pieces of the architecture of democracy. Scholars have noted that although US constitutional democracy originated without political parties, parties have become the definitive features of representative democracy in the US. This central place of political parties in the US has elicited criticism from some who are worried at the growing divisiveness fostered by the partisan spirit and the gridlock it occasions in the legislature. But, notwithstanding this untoward outcome, democratic theory is built on the vitality of political parties. As the US Supreme Court put it in California Democratic Party v. Jones, “Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views”. Robert Dahl, the most famous political scientist of this century also argues that without political parties it would be difficult to protect the right of choice. As political scientist E.E Schattschneider said, “The parties created democracy, or perhaps more accurately, modern democracy is a by-product of party competition”.

The drafters of the new electoral law recognize the importance of party to democracy in Nigeria, and, for the first time, opens the management of parties, especially the nomination of candidates for elective offices, to regulatory control and consequently, more robust judicial review. Unlike in the past, the leaders of the parties are constrained to ensure effective participation of registered members of the parties in the choice of who stands for election on the party’s platform. Whether you adopt a direct or indirect model of primary, the new law expects that the registered members of the party have the opportunity to decide who stands election on their behalf. It is the right of all members of the party, not the party leaders, to determine who becomes candidates for elective positions.

This improvement in the democratic quality of the primaries aligns with the constitutional statement in Section 221 that only political parties can campaign for votes. If only parties can present candidates for election and campaign for votes, then it is imperative that the choice of such candidates for election be as democratic as possible. Therefore, if the party chooses Indirect Primary to elect its candidates, then the electing delegates themselves must be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

Do you know as a woman that you deserve a right to your Father's property?

In December 1961, Lazarus Ogbonnaga Ukeje died intestate with real property in Lagos State. The appellants are his wife Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje and her son, Mr. Enyinnaya Lazarus Ukeje, both of whom obtained Letters of Administration for and over the deceased’s Estate. The plaintiff/respondent is the daughter of the deceased and brought this suit seeking a declaration from the court that as the daughter of the deceased she is entitled to a share of his estate.

The Supreme Court upheld as inviolate the finding by the lower courts that that Igbo customary law which disentitles a female from inheriting the property of the deceased father is void as it conflicts with the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination set out in section 42(1)(a) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution(link is external). Based on a textual interpretation of the Constitution, the Court further clarified that no matter the circumstances of the birth of a female child, such a child is entitled to an inheritance from her late father's estate. This would indicate that it does not matter whether the female child is born out of wedlock.