BEING A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BENIN/STUDENT UNION GOVERNMENT 10TH LEGAL SYMPOSIUM ON FRIDAY 21ST APRIL, 2017 BY
OMORUYI A. OMONUWA SAN, OFR, FCIArb, FNIM, F.DRI, FIARN
It is my most profound pleasure to be here today to participate in this symposium and share a little of my knowledge and understanding with all present. I do hope at the end of this talk, everyone would have taken something from the ideas that I shall espouse.
This paper proceeds on the assumption that nation building is not the work, job or duty of one class of persons alone i.e. the government. Therefore, we proceed on the assumption that though the government has the larger percentage of the responsibility of nation building, the job of nation building is collective in nature, so that everyone, both the rulers and the ruled have a part to play in national development.
The question of the justiciability of Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) [hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Constitution (as amended)] is a severely over flogged issue.Many legal scholars and practitioners have written and argued very lengthy treatises on the question of the justiciability of Chapter II which embodies Sections 13-24 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
No wonder the organisers, in framing the theme for this symposium, started off with the legal conclusion that the said Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is indeed non-justiciable. One cannot fault their position, as the decided cases to be discussed subsequently seem to point to this view.
However, the law being what it is, a dynamic social science, where the quest for the one true correct principle is never ending, I cannot just accept this conclusion without looking at the decided cases vis-a-vis the Constitution to determine if indeed Sections 13-24 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are non-justiciable.
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Legal practitioners and scholars would often describe the Constitution using the German word Grundnorm. The word was coined by an adherent of the Pure Theory of Law called Hans Kelen, which presupposes that there is a fons et origo of all laws. Simply put, he advocated that all laws find their source and origin in a basic norm or law.
The word grundnorm thus appropriately describes the 1999 Constitution (as amended), because it is indeed the basic law in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.It is the fountain from which all other laws draw their validity and indeed, legitimacy. This point is succinctly expressed in the opening words of the 1999 Constitution:
Thus it is a legal truism that all of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) reign supreme, so that the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be governed outside of its provisions. It would likewise be correct to say that the Constitution isself-limiting i.e. it is only the Constitution itself that can limit the powers conferred or duties prescribed by the Constitution.
THE NATURE OF CHAPTER II OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)
On this premise of all that I have said above, Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is aptly titled “Fundamental Objective and Directive Principles of State Policy”. It provides for the fundamental obligations of the Government and the founding principles of the Nigerian State. It likewise embodies the political, economic, social, educational, cultural and environmental objective of the State. Furthermore, it sets out the foreign policy objective of the State, our collective National ethics, the obligations of the mass media and finally the duties of the Nigerian citizen.
The result of the extensive Constitutional provisions in Sections 13-24 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is a synergy of rights and duties which are supposed to be the map that guides State policy and likewise the barometer with which both the Government and the citizens are judged.
Therefore, borrowing a leaf from the Hobbesian theory of law , it is self-evident that Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is the true social contract between the Nigerian government and the its citizens. This social contract lays out the minimum standards that if achieved would guarantee good governance, social justice, peace, security and national development.
These provisions as to the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy are not peculiar to the 1999 Constitution (as amended). In India for instance, Courts have come to the conclusion that the purpose of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment thus bringing about a non-violent social revolution. For these reasons the Indian Courts have held that the directive principles are justiciable.
However, if you have been following from the beginning of this presentation, the said rights and duties contained in Sections 13-24 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) i.e. Chapter II rights are said to be non-justiciable, derived from the root word justiciable. For the benefit of the non-legal amongst us, there is a need to define the word justiciable.
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines justiciable as “capable of being disposed of judicially”; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “liable to trial in a court of justice; capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice”.Simply put, justiciable issues are matters that can rightly be brought before and determined by a Court of law.
In Ugwu v. Ararume the Supreme Court per Honourable Justice Muhammad, JSC held
“An enactment is justiciable if only it can be properly pursued before a court of law or tribunal for a decision. But where a court or tribunal cannot enforce such enactment the it becomes non-justiciable (i.e. non-enforceable).
Accordingly, the antonym of justiciable is non-justiciable i.e. matters that cannot be brought before or determined by a Court of law. It is thus evident from the theme of this symposium that the organisers have concluded that all of the rights and corresponding duties created and guaranteed by Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution cannot form the basis of adjudication before a Court of law or as the as the common man would say, cannot give you the right to file a case in Court.
IS CHAPTER II TRULY NON-JUSTICIABLE?
The non-justiciability of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is predicated on Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides
“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section- (c) Shall not, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution.”
The judicial powers of the State are vested in the Courts , and the Courts alone have the power to determine if there has been a breach of a person’s rights and thereafter give effect to the said right. Accordingly, the practical effect of Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is that it purports to completely oust the Courts jurisdiction to entertain any “issue or question” as it pertains to the Chapter II rights and duties. In essence, while Chapter II creates rights, Section 6(6)(c) purports to takes away the ability to enforce those rights!
It would thus appear that from the provision of Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)that the jurisdiction conferred on our Courts and the right of access to Court guaranteed by Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), are expressly limited and do not apply for the enforcement of Chapter II rights and duties.
As expected the provision of Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution has indeed been very controversial! The Courts have been called upon severally to adjudicate on the question of the true import of this seemingly onerous provision of the Constitution. I shall not go into a full treatise on the jurisprudence of our Courts as regards Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), but shall rather discuss two decisions that easily explain the point to be made. In A.G. Ondo State v A.G. Federation while determining the Constitutionality of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000 in the context of Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List, the Supreme Court per Honourable Justice Uwaifo, JSC held
“As to the non-justiciability of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter II of our Constitution, Section (6)(c) says so. While they remain mere declarations, they cannot be enforced by legal process but would be seen as a failure of duty and responsibility of State organs if they acted in clear disregard of them, the nature of the consequence of which having to depend on the aspect of the infringement and in some cases the political will of those in power to redress the situation. But the Directive Principles (or some of them) can be made justiciable by legislation. This is the point that Chief Babalola seemed to have elaborated upon when he said that the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles had laid dormant in our Constitution since 1979 and that the Act was the first effort to activate just one aspect of them in order that there may be good and transparent government throughout the Federation of Nigeria.”
Also in Ugwu v. Ararume while determining the meaning of justiciability in the context of Section 34 of the Electoral Act and the right of political parties to select nominees for elections, the Supreme Court per Honourable Justice Muhammad, JSC held
“An enactment is justiciable if only it can be properly pursued before a court of law or tribunal for a decision. But where a court or tribunal cannot enforce such enactment then it becomes non-justiciable (i.e. non-enforceable). This means that the Executive does not have to comply with the enactment unless and until the Legislature enacts specific laws for its enforcement. In our constitutional law we have typical examples of such enactments particularly those contained in Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, placed under the caption, ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.’ These are not justiceable (sic), generally, they run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights contained n Chapter IV of the constitution.”
Thus, it would appear that from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the authorities cited above, the following constitute the legal interpretation of Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended):
It is this last point above that caused me question the legal truism of the theme of this symposium that the Chapter II rights are non-justiciable. Through the instrumentality of an Acts of the National Assembly, the said Chapter II rights and duties which were hitherto non-justiciable, can be activated, and thus confer positive and enforceable rights and corresponding duties on both the government and the citizenry.
The question therefore is, are there any such Acts of the National Assembly that have activated the various provisions of Sections 13-24 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and by so doing conferred enforceable rights on the citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? The answer is a resounding yes!
The workings of these various legislations shall be discussed in detail subsequently when treating the impediments that the non-enforcement of these Chapter II rights have resulted in, however the following legislations, which do not constitute a complete list, are very relevant:
Perhaps most radical in activating these Chapter II rights and duties is the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) (FREP) Rules, 2009. The radical nature of the FREP Rules, 2009 on the issue of locus standi in Fundamental Rights actions is well documented. However as regards the Chapter II rights, the Preamble to the FREP Rules, 2009 is so broadly worded that it could potentially activate all of the Chapter II rights and duties. Kindly permit me to quote from the FREP Rules, 2009 at length:
“3. The overriding objective of these Rules are as follows:
(a)The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protection intended by them
(b) For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal, regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these bills constitute instruments in themselves or form part of larger documents like constitutions. Such bills include;
(i) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the African regional human rights system,
(ii) The Universal Declarations of Human Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human rights system”
The wording of No. 3(b)(ii) of the Preamble quoted above is worthy of comment. From the FREP Rules, 2009 the Courts are mandated to respect and adhere to the “instruments...in the United Nations human rights system” which is cited to it.
This is a very important provision.This is because by natural consequence Courts are mandated to apply two very important international treaties of which Nigeria is signatory i.e. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and more importantly the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which is remarkable similar to the Chapter II rights which are under consideration.
However, one nagging question is probably running through your minds which I am guessing is ‘But the FREP Rules, 2009 is subsidiary legislation and not an Act of the National Assembly so how can it activate the Chapter II rights?’ If I am right, then your question is indeed relavnt.
However, although the FREP Rules, 2009 is subsidiary legislation, it is not just ordinary. It is a set of Rules made pursuant to the Constitutional powers conferred by Section 46(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and in interpreting the nature of such Rules, the Courts have held that they share in the very nature of the constitution itself and are deemed part and parcel of the Constitution. In Abia State University, Uturu v. Chima Anyaibe the Court of Appeal per Honourable Justice Kastina-Alu, JCA (as he then was) held
“Section 42(3) of the Constitution also empowered the Chief Justice of Nigeria to make Rules with respect to the practice and procedure to be allowed in cases concerning Section 42(1) and the Rules were accordingly enacted pursuant thereto. They form part of the Constitution...I think an action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 is a peculiar action. It is a special action. The procedure is provided by the Rules which are made pursuant to Section 42(3) of the 1979 Constitution...As I have already stated earlier on in this Judgment, the Rules have the same force of law as the Constitution itself. What this means is that the Rules overrides any other enactment...” [ ][ ]
On this premise, the FREP Rules, 2009 would rightly be described as an extension of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), having the same force of law as the Constitution itself, and thus as highlighted above, with the ability to activate the Chapter II rights.
Therefore it is my submission that the various clauses, articles and sections of theenactments listed above have had the effect of codifying various aspects of the Chapter II rights and duties into Constitutional provisions and legislation, thus vesting them with the status of enforceability.
This long treatise leads me back to the theme of this symposium “The non-justiciability of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution...” It is my humble view that this conclusion might indeed no longer be a legal truism. From all that I have said above, it is thus clear that the Chapter II rights and duties are, in legal fact, now justiciable. In line with the decisions of the Supreme Court in the A.G. Ondo State v A.G. Federation and Ugwu v. Ararume cases, various provisions of Chapter II have now been activated, rendering them enforceable.
However, despite the justiciability of these Chapter II rights, we have a state of affairs which can be succinctly summarised as “Though it can be done, it is not being done”! Simply put, though our collective Chapter II rights can be enforced, they are not being enforced, which makes the instant symposium very relevant.
However, kindly permit me to rephrase the theme before I proceed thus: ‘The Non-Enforcement of Chapter II rights and duties: Its Impediment to the Nation’s Political, Economic, Social, Educational and Environmental Development’
NON-ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER II RIGHTS AND DUTIES
The biggest drawback that has resulted from the non-enforcementof our communal social contract i.e. the Chapter II rights and duties as regards ourcollective national development is the stark and incredible lack of accountability.
It is a common knowledge that in a Constitutional Democracy such as ours, though all the arms of government are equal and independent, the Judiciary is primus inter pares. This is because the Courts are the custodians and defenders of the Constitution, with the capability to invalidate the acts of the other arms of government which are unconstitutional.
Therefore, in such systems of government,significant and sometimes seismic political, economic, social and cultural changes are caused by the decisions of the Courts. One need not look farther that the United States of American after which our Presidential system of government is fashioned.
The civil rights movement which ushered in a fundamental change in the political and socio-economic landscape of the United States was speared by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. The enduring words of the Court “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” served as a Berlin Wall moment, which gradually brought down the evil walls of segregation.
The Courts are therefore a veritable instrument for socio-economic, political and cultural change. This is illustrated by the decisions of our Supreme Court in Ukeje v. Ukeje to the effect that “the Igbo customary law which disentitles a female child from partaking in the sharing of her deceased father’s estate” is repugnant and unconstitutional and thus void, thus setting the stage for a fundamental change in the cultural practice of the Igbos.
Therefore, the fact that the citizens of Nigeria have not taken advantage of the various enactments which activated our Chapter II rights, has indeed slowed down the rate of our collective national development.It is clear that the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution contain very important wishes and aspirations which are germane to educational, political and industrial advancement of the Nigerian State, if they are complied with.
A government that cannot be liable for its failures to carry out its constitutional obligations cannot be said to bear any responsibility. Such government cannot be accountable to the people who are the ultimate sovereign in a Constitutional democracy.
Thus, the lack of enforcement of the Chapter II rights and duties has led to a pervading lack of accountability on the part of the government and the governed, a giving rise to state of affairs akin to a cankerworm that has continued to eat into the fabric of our national development. Paying due regard to the theme of this symposium, I shall discuss the effect of the non-enforcement of the Chapter II rights on the Political, Economic, Social, Educational and Environmental development of the nation.
The political expectations of the Nigerian State are expressed in Sections 14, 15(4) and 22 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). These duties and the converse rights are made enforceable by Articles 9, 13, 19 and 23 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, LFN 2004.
By these rights, the security and welfare and equal participation of the Nigerian citizen in government is paramount. Likewise the freedom of the press is guaranteed to ensure that they hold the government accountable to the people.
I need not go very far in delineating how the welfare and security of the average Nigerian citizen has been ignored. It has become typical of the Nigerian State that at every given time there is a serious and ever present security challenge ravaging the country, from the time of ethno-religious clashes to the Niger Delta Militancy and now the Boko Haram scourge. The security of the average Nigerian has constantly been threatened.
On the issue of welfare, in most developing countries, the indices on poverty is generally on the decrease, however, in the case of Nigeria the reverse seems to be the case. As of 2010, the National Bureau of Statistics put the figures of absolute poverty in Nigeria at 62.6%, while the BBC reports that the rate of 60.9% was an increase from 54.7% recorded in 2004. For the Giant of Africa, these are amazing figures.
On the freedom of the press, we are not in similar straits as the days of the military junta, however recently the National Assembly made moves to criminalise free speech on social media platforms which led to massive public outcry. There have likewise been isolated incidences of attacks on media houses by “unknown gunmen” a now popular phrase, which is bound to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press.
As to the participation of the people in their government, it has become a popular refrain that the Nigerian political structure is a recycle machine. The same persons get appointed and reappointed into our national governmental structure, the effect being the continued perpetuation of archaic processes of governance.
Sections 15(5) and 16 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides for the economic duties of the government to the Nigerian citizen. By its provisions the government has a fundamental duty to abolish corruption, plan and bring to fruition a balanced economy by harnessing our commonwealth and ensuring that wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a few. The aim of this is the provision of basic amenities such as food, shelter, health, basic remuneration for work and care for the old and disabled and a pension for work done thus ensuring the welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen.
These rights are rendered enforceable by Articles 13, 16 and 22 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, LFN 2004; Sections 12-14 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act Cap. C31, LFN 2004 and Sections 4 and 14 of the Child Rights Act Cap. C50, LFN 2004, with corresponding provisions in States that have adopted the Act and passed it into law.
Various governments in recent past have come up with their own plan for national economic development.From the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) of the Obasanjo era, to the Vision 20/2020 of the Yar’adua era, the Transformation Agenda of the Jonathan era and now the Economic Recovery Plan of the Buhari dispensation.
Despite all these laudable programmes, the Nigerian people are still wallowing in abject poverty and frustration. The wealth of the nation is looted on a daily basis and is recurrently concentrated in the hands of a few in the upper echelons of government along with their cohorts. What has been the case over the years is the plundering of resources for the happiness of only a few citizens, making the commonwealth of the Nigerian people the private wealth of a selected few.
The result is abject poverty for a vast majority of Nigerians, a minimum wage structure that falls squarely within the poverty line, dilapidated health care structures giving rise to an industry of overseas health care tourism, lack of adequate nutrition for a spate of the populace, absence of appropriate shelter for the people, continuous protests by retirees for payment of pension, and most importantly, a non-developmental mono oil dependent economy!
At independence Nigeria was seen as the bastion of hope in Africa, rightly earning it the title of giant of Africa. Fifty-Seven years later, we remain an ever-developing third world country, economically overtaken by its peers, and fast becoming the laughing stock of Africa.
The standards for social interactions amongst citizens are captured by Sections 15 and 17 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The said sections express our national motto of Unity and Faith, Peace and Progress. The mechanismsto be used in attaining these lofty goals are national integration and abhorrence of discrimination on any basis whatsoever, thus fostering a feeling of belonging. Likewise equality, human dignity, independence and impartiality of the Courts and freedom from exploitation especially for the young are to be at the foundation of our national social interaction.
These provisions are made enforceable by Articles 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, LFN 2004; Section 6 and 28of the Child Rights Act Cap. C50, LFN 2004, and Sections 34, 38, 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
However, the question is, is our national motto anywhere near actualisation? The country is perhaps more divided at the moment than at anytime since the civil war. Continuous cries for secession ring from all concerns of the country and the divisive seeds of ethnic and religious differences have grown to full strength. It is still a common sight, even on governmental documents, to see columns for state of origin, and the attendant discrimination that comes with it.
Accordingly, peace seems to continuously be on the decline, with government struggling on a daily basis to keep the peace in the broken State. The independence of the judiciary is constantly questioned, and the recent activities of the security apparatus have definitely not helped. Therefore, access to justice is farfetched for the common man, and it is a popular saying that in the absence of justice there can be no peace.
If I asked everyone here present to echo a response as to whether they have faith in our national system, structure or government, I am sure that the answer would be a resounding no! This is simply because 57 years after independence we are in the continuous spiral of failed promises absent progress. As a result, the Nigerian citizenry is lacking the very basic amenities that would bring about human dignity and equality!
The guiding principles for national educational development arecontained in Section 18 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It enjoins that governmental policy be directed towards ensuring equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels promoting science and technology, eradicating illiteracy and ensuring free, compulsory and universal primary education, free university education and adult literacy programme.
These provisions are made enforceable by Article 17 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, LFN 2004 and Section 15of the Child Rights Act Cap. C50, LFN 2004.
I am standing within the premises of an academic institution, so I think the adage “he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches” is very apt! The standard of education in Nigeria is continuous on a downward spiral. Not a single Nigeria institution of higher learning features in the Top 20 Universities in Africa or the Top 1000 in the world.
Free, compulsory and universal primary education has attained the status of a myth, talk more of higher education. As at 2015 only 59.6% of Nigerians were literate in a Country were only 6% of the budget was allocated for education which is way below the UNESCO benchmark.
Our schools are falling into a state of disrepair, and some are already almost beyond salvaging. What is the net effect of this neglect? We are not investing in our future! Another adage then becomes apt, “He who fails to plan, plans to fail”!
The Chapter II provision on the environment is simple and straight to the point
“The State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wild life of Nigeria.”
This provision is made enforceable by Article 24 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, LFN 2004.
Whenever there is talk of environmental degradation the mind of every Nigerian naturally goes to the Niger Delta, and rightly so! There is no other part of this country that has suffered the harsh and devastating effects of environmental pollution as the Niger Delta. Pictures of oil pollution are regularly splashed across the pages of national and international media outlets, while the oil corporations continue to plunder the region without fixing the pollution caused as a result.
Several moves have been made by various governments to clean up the area, but a glaring lack of political will has truncated every such attempt, perhaps except the very recent move by the Buhari administration. Regulation upon regulation have been made to bring an end to gas flaring, but the gas still flares which brings with it monumental health hazards.
It is however, perhaps in the aspect of the environment that the greatest effort to enforce the Chapter II rights have been made. Various activist and NGOs including SERPA have made giant strides in various national, regional and international Courts to bring justice to the people of the Niger Delta region.
However, damage to the environment is not just limited to the Niger Delta, while uninhibited erosion continue to wash away massive swats of arable land in the South-East, various parts of NorthernNigeria is being lost to desertification. Wild life conservation is non-existent, with the erstwhile minister of the environment admitting that we have no reliable statistics on the nature and number of wild life within our territory.
The rights enshrined in Chapter II of the constitution dealing with the Fundamental objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy are ideals that must be attained for true national development. However, as a result of the lack of enforcement, they have remained just ideals, symbolic and ideological portraits and expressions of what governance and life in Nigeria should be and not what they are.
Inspite of Nigeria’s rich natural and intellectual resources, the level of poverty is appalling; unemployment has reached unprecedented levels; healthcare is unaffordable and in severally places totally lacking; crime and terrorism have become ways of life; education is comatose while implementation of other basic necessities have ended up as empty talk devoid of real worth or content.
The real quagmire is that despite this state of affairs, there is no concrete evidence suggesting that the ruling Class is willing and ready to bridge the artificial gap between the admirable ideals of the Chapter II rights and the reality having regards to the political and economic landscapes of the Nigerian State at the moment. Undoubtedly, what is required is a vigorous and concerted effort to enforce the Chapter II rights, and by so doing compel a measure of accountability and transparency in governmental decision making.
Thus, more actions such as Odofe & Ors. v AG Federation and Ubani v Director SS which successfully defended the socio-economic rights of prison population to medicare and SERPA v FGNwherein the ECOWAS Court held that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights creates justiciable rights are necessary and should be encouraged.
This paper would not be complete if I conclude it without making recommendations.
However, as the preamble of the United States Constitution reads, I do believe that the recommendations are self evident. As such, I would be succinct:
Which espouses the principle of a social contract between the government and the governed i.e. in order to bring an end to a short and brutish world, the people together give authority to the government to rule over them in exchange for a defined set of mutual rights and obligations. See Hobbes, Thomas. Levithian, 1651. Menston, Scolar P, 1969. Print.
BBC News, Nigerians living in poverty rise to nearly 61%; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17015873 [accessed: 20/4/2017]
Index Mundi, http://www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/literacy.html [accessed: 20/4/2017]