In this paper presented at the 2025 NBA Annual General Conference, Enugu, FEMI FALANA, SAN argues that though Nigeria’s Constitution protects civil and political rights, non-justiciable socio-economic rights leave the poor unable to fully enjoy their freedoms, thereby fostering inequality and insecurity. The learned silk therefore calls for legal reinterpretation to make these rights enforceable, citing domestic laws, the African Charter, and ECOWAS precedents even as he emphasized the roles of lawyers, courts, the NBA, and citizens in defending rights, concluding that security and socio-economic justice must go hand in hand to make citizenship meaningful.
INTRODUCTION
Our topic, “Citizens’ Rights & Security Concerns,” invites us to widen the lens through which we understand both rights and security. Too often, security is reduced to the absence of physical danger—an agenda of soldiers, police, fences, and gates. But citizens do not live by fences alone. They live by wages and jobs, by food and housing, by clinics and schools, by clean water and a breathable sky. A nation that is free from bullets but not from hunger, disease, joblessness, squalor, or illiteracy is not secure. It is merely quiet.
This presentation will, therefore, proceed in stages. We will first restate the content of civil and political rights as they are lived, not merely as they are written. We will then confront the non-justiciability problem that blunts socio-economic guarantees and shows drawing on jurisprudence, regional and international instruments that pathways to enforcement already exist. We will propose advocacy and litigation tactics that any diligent practitioner or civil society group can deploy on Monday morning. And we will return, in conclusion, to the unifying claim: there is no durable national security without socio-economic security.
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN NIGERIA
Before we can repair the fabric of citizens’ security, we must take stock of the civil and political rights entrenched in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). These are the classic guarantees—life, dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, freedom of thought and expression, assembly and association, movement, freedom from discrimination, together with the right to seek redress when they are breached.
The afore-mentioned political and civil rights have been well defended and protected by Nigerian lawyers on behalf of their affluent clients. But the class bias of the ruling class led to the so-called non justiciability of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. In other words, socio-economic rights are not said not to be enforceable because they are not justiciable.
SECURITY AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE
In Nigeria, we proudly proclaim civil and political liberties—life, dignity, liberty, expression, assembly, and fair hearing. Yet, for millions, these rights function as formal guarantees without material access. You can have the right to vote and still be excluded by poverty; you can have freedom of expression and still be silenced by illiteracy; you can have the right to life and still be denied lifesaving healthcare because you cannot pay.
In practice, non-justiciable socio-economic rights create a two-tier constitution: civil and political rights that the well-off can meaningfully enjoy, and a catalogue of socio-economic promises that the poor cannot enforce. The result is a predictable spiral: inequality, exclusion, grievance, and instability. That spiral is a security problem.
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. By virtue of section 217 thereof, the armed forces shall defend the territorial integrity of the nation. It is the Nigeria Police Force that is responsible for the maintenance of law and order as prescribed by Section 215 thereof. However, the armed forces may be involved in internal security to the extent of aiding the civil authority to restore law and order.
But in spite of several cases in which the courts have restrained the armed forces from getting involved in the management of internal security, the armed forces have been accused of subversion of democracy by intimidating voters. The authorities of the armed forces should comply with decided cases on the maintenance of law and order.
With respect to the counter insurgency operations, Nigerians believe that the armed forces are capable of ending terrorism. While acknowledging the sacrifice of the armed forces is appreciated, the authorities should comply with decided cases on the maintenance of law and order in the country. Since the bulk of the budget of the Ministry of Defence is spent on recurrent expenditure, we call on the Federal Government to provide adequate funds for the acquisition of vital equipment for the prosecution of the war on terror.
KIDNAPPING AND KILLING OF NIGERIANS
It is a shame that the security architecture of the country cannot address kidnapping and abduction by bandits and killing by gunmen, armed robbers, and other criminal gangs. While we urge the governments to spend the bulk of security votes to the acquisition of modern equipment to combat the incessant kidnapping and killing of citizens and foreigners in our midst, it is high time the attention of lawyers was drawn to the need to challenge the extrajudicial killing of citizens by state and non state actors. In other words, lawyers are enjoined to file actions for the dependents of citizens who are killed on account of the failure of the government to protect their fundamental right to life. This position has been upheld by the Ecowas Court in the two cases below:
- Afolalu v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Unreported) SUIT NO: ECW/CCJ/APP/04/12.
The Community Court of ECOWAS held the that the federal government was negligent in failing to secure the life of the plaintiff’s husband which led to his brutal killing by rioters during the post-election violence which greeted the announcement of the presidential election in April 2011. The court awarded N10 million damages to the plaintiff.
- Obioma Ogukwe v Republic of Ghana (Suit no. ECW/CCJ/APP/03/14)
The Ecowas Court ordered the Republic of Ghana to pay $250,000 as compensation to the family of a 15-year old Nigerian student, Augustine Chukwuebuka Ogukwe, who died in a swimming incident on October 15, 2013 in Ghana.
The court said the compensation is for the failure of the country’s police to carry out a proper investigation into the death of the student, thereby failing in its obligation to protect and defend all persons within its territory.
The plaintiff, the father of the deceased, Mr. Obioma Ogukwe, alleged that he was given an autopsy report issued by the Ghana Police Hospital without his consent or knowledge, which revealed that the basic cause of death was drowning, while the direct cause was asphyxia by submersion.
BASIC RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
In order to address the denial of the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people generally, we have struggled and won the basic rights of criminal suspects, political activists and other citizens in their regular encounter with the police and other law enforcement agencies. Thus, the basic rights of suspects are enshrined in various legal instruments, including the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, the Police Establishment Act 2020, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and the Anti-Torture Act 2017.
These provisions aim to protect suspects from abuse, uphold equality before the law, and ensure fairness in the criminal justice process. Thus, the basic rights of suspects include the following:
- Right to Be Informed of the Grounds of Arrest
Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed in writing within 24 hours (and in the language he understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest or detention.” This is reinforced by Section 6(2)(a) of the ACJA and Section 35(2) of the Police Act, 2020.
- Right to Remain Silent and Avoid Self-Incrimination
Section 35(2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 17 of the ACJA affirm a suspect’s right to remain silent. Section 17(1) of the ACJA provides that a suspect “shall be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to the dignity of his person; and not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” This also supports the right against self-incrimination under Section 36(11) of the Constitution.
- Right to Legal Representation
Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right of every person to defend themselves in person or by legal practitioners of their choice. Section 6(2)(b) and Section 17(2) of the ACJA, as well as Section 35(2) of the Police Act, further affirm the right to consult a lawyer after arrest. In Ubani v. Director, SSS (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 625) 129, the court emphasized the inviolability of legal representation from the moment of arrest.
- Right to Humane Treatment
Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution prohibits torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This is reinforced by Section 8 of the ACJA, Section 1 of the Anti-Torture Act 2017, and Section 36 of the Police Act 2020. The court in COP v. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 130 held that beating a suspect to extract a confession amounted to a violation of the Constitution. Also, in Jim-Jaja v C.O.P Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225, the Court of Appeal affirmed that any suspect in custody is entitled to dignity and humane treatment.
- Right to Be Brought Before a Court within a Reasonable Time
Section 35(4) of the Constitution provides that a person arrested must be brought before a court within a reasonable time—24 hours in places with courts nearby – and 48 hours otherwise. Section 293–299 of the ACJA establishes a framework for remand proceedings and prescribes timelines for police investigations and arraignment.
- Right to Presumption of Innocence
Section 36(5) of the Constitution states that “every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.”
- Right to Bail
Section 35(4) and (5) of the Constitution and Sections 158–165 of the ACJA recognize the right to bail for persons accused of offences, particularly non-capital offences. Section 30(1) of the Police Act also requires that bail be granted where appropriate and without unnecessary conditions. In Egwumi v. FRN (2013) LPELR-20091(CA), the court held that bail must not be unreasonably denied.
- No Arrest in Lieu
Section 7 of the ACJA prohibits the arrest of a person in substitution for another. Arresting relatives or associates of a suspect in their absence is unconstitutional.
- No Arrest for Civil Wrongs
Sections 8(2) and 10 of the ACJA expressly prohibit the arrest of persons in respect of civil disputes, such as debt recovery, contractual breaches, and landlord-tenant disputes. In Oceanic Securities Ltd v. Balogun (2012) LPELR-9218(CA), the court decried using police to settle civil scores.
- Prohibition of Media Parade of Suspects
Section 9 of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2015 prohibits media parades of suspects. Public display of suspects before trial amounts to a violation of the presumption of innocence.
MONITORING OF ARRESTS
Sections 33 of the ACJA provide for monitoring mechanisms to prevent abuse of arrest powers. To prevent abuse of the power of arrest, the monitoring mechanisms are:
i. The Inspector-General of Police shall submit quarterly reports of arrests to the Attorney-General of the Federation (Section 33).
ii. State Commissioners of Police must report monthly to State Attorneys-General.
iii. All Police Divisions must submit monthly arrest records to the nearest magistrate.
iv. Chief Magistrates shall visit all police stations at least once a month. Judges shall be designated to visit other detention facilities. The Chief Magistrates and judges may grant bail, order the release of suspects, or order their arraignment in the appropriate courts.
v. Every police division must have at least one officer qualified to practise as a legal practitioner to monitor human rights compliance by officers of the division.
The above provisions help detect arbitrary arrests, ensure compliance with due process, and promote transparency in policing. The duty of Nigerian lawyers is to defend the aforementioned provisions of the relevant laws.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND THE CHALLENGE OF NON-JUSTICIABILITY
Socio-economic rights—health, education, housing, social security, fair, clean and safe environment are the substrate upon which civil and political liberties are exercised. In Nigeria, however, most socio-economic guarantees in Chapter II are non-justiciable, weakening enforceability.
Without socio-economic rights, the majority of poor citizens are disabled from enjoying political and civil rights. For instance, without education, income, health, housing, and social security, political and civil rights become formally equal but materially unequal—usable mainly by the well-off. That inequality is itself a security risk.
TRANSITION FROM ASPIRATION TO ENFORCEMENT
Contrary to the misleading claim of Nigerian judges that the fundamental objectives and directive principles are not enforceable, there has been a transition from aspiration to enforcement of socio-economic rights in the following ways:
i. The socio-economic rights enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act are enforceable in domestic courts pursuant to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009.
ii. Socio-economic rights enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and other international human rights instruments are enforceable in the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States, otherwise known as Ecowas Court.
iii. Laws made pursuant to Chapter II of the Constitution are enforceable in domestic courts. Some of these laws include the Compulsory, Free Universal Basic Education Act, Child Rights Act, Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act, National Social Investment Programme Agency Act etc.
iv. The National Industrial Court protects the rights of Nigerian workers enshrined in the conventions of the International Labour Organisation that have been ratified by the Federal Government of Nigeria In line with the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution.
ROLE OF LAWYERS, COURTS, AND CITIZENS IN THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The realization of socio-economic rights in Nigeria ultimately depends on the courage, creativity, and commitment of legal actors. Lawyers, courts, and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have vital roles to play in shifting socio-economic rights from the realm of aspiration to practical enforcement. In order to expand the democratic space for the promotion and defence of the human rights of the Nigerian people, the roles that should be played by all relevant stakeholders include the following:
- The Role of Lawyers
Lawyers stand at the frontlines of this struggle. By framing socio-economic claims creatively, they can pierce the constitutional shield of section 6(6)(c). For instance, socio-economic entitlements can be linked to justiciable civil and political rights under Chapter IV of the Constitution — such as arguing that denial of education violates the right to dignity of the human person, or that environmental degradation amounts to a breach of the right to life. Beyond litigation, lawyers must take on the role of educators, enlightening citizens about the rights that exist in law and the avenues available to enforce them. Public interest litigation is a powerful tool that lawyers can deploy, bringing test cases that challenge governmental neglect and expand the frontiers of judicial recognition.
- The Role of the Courts
The courts must move away from a narrow, technical reading of the Constitution and embrace purposive, transformative interpretations. Just as Indian courts have elevated socio-economic rights to enforceable entitlements, Nigerian judges can interpret Chapter II in light of the Constitution’s preamble, the Fundamental Rights in Chapter IV, and binding international treaties like the African Charter. Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, while often cited as a bar, contains interpretive openings that courts can utilize to make Chapter II provisions meaningful. Landmark decisions such as Gbemre v. Shell (2005) 1 AHRLR 151 demonstrates that the judiciary can creatively expand rights protection, thereby ensuring that constitutional justice is not reduced to abstractions.
- The Role of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)
As the umbrella body of the legal profession, the NBA has both the platform and the responsibility to push socio-economic rights into the mainstream of legal and political discourse. Through its conferences, continuing legal education programs, and advocacy engagements with the government, the NBA can press for constitutional reforms that make Chapter II fully enforceable. The bar should also build coalitions with civil society, labour unions, and professional associations to sustain pressure for legislative and policy change.
- Citizens’ Mobilization and Mass Action
Beyond courtrooms and bar conferences, the wider citizenry must be mobilized to see socio-economic rights as integral to their dignity and security. Lawyers and bar associations can spearhead grassroots legal empowerment programs, enabling communities to recognize violations and take action. Strategic litigation combined with mass advocacy can create the political momentum necessary for reform. By linking socio-economic justice to daily struggles — food, jobs, healthcare, education — lawyers can translate abstract rights into lived realities for ordinary Nigerians.
In short, the pursuit of enforceable socio-economic rights is a collective enterprise. Lawyers must litigate boldly, courts must purposively, and the bar must advocate vigorously. Together with citizens’ actions, these efforts can gradually erode the barriers of section 6(6)(c) and secure a future where rights are not mere promises but enforceable guarantees.
IMMEDIATE TASKS FOR NBA
Nigeria has one of the best human rights regimes in the world. But the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act are observed in breach by the government and powerful and members of the ruling class. The duty of the Nigerian Bar Association is to position its members to defend all victims of human rights abuse in every part of the country. Permit me to make the following suggestions:
i. The NBA should lead a campaign for the enforcement of the socio-economic rights guaranteed by the African Charter on the Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
ii. The NBA should direct SPIDEL to institute cases with a view to compelling the government to enforce all welfare laws in the interest of the Nigerian people.
iii. The NBA should direct its 130 branches to take up cases of human rights abuse of the poor and vulnerable groups in the country.
iv. The NBA should direct the human rights committees of the branches to accompany magistrates and judges during the monthly visits to police stations and other detention facilities in the Federal Capital Territory and all the states of the Federation.
v. The NBA should mount pressure on the National Assembly to appropriate funds to enable the Police Service Commission to employ legal practitioners to ensure observance of human rights in all police divisions in accordance with Section 63 of the Police Establishment Act.
vi. The NBA should request the Inspector-General of Police and other heads of law enforcement and anti-graft agencies to issue directives on the basic rights of suspects enshrined in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Police Establishment Act 2020.
CONCLUSION
The Nigerian Constitution does not give us the luxury of choosing between rights and security. It commands us to pursue both. Security without welfare is brittle; welfare without security is fragile. The duty of our generation – at the bar, on the bench, in civil society and government, is to insist that rights are not paper promises but living guarantees. That is how the Republic can be stabilised, and that is the only way we make citizenship meaningful for every Nigerian.
Permit me to conclude this presentation by recalling the statement of the late Dr. Akinola Aguda, in his keynote address, was delivered at the 1985 Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association. The respected jurist warned Nigerian lawyers to appreciate that “equality before the law is nothing but a myth created by our political rulers and the lawyers to give cold comfort to the poor so that they, the political rulers and lawyers can have peace of mind.”
