Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Proportionality (2).

 Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Proportionality (2). 

2. Principle of Proportionality

This principle advocates that when targeting a legitimate military objective, an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause incidental civilian harm (loss of life, injury, or damage to civilian objects) that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The principle recognises that some collateral damage may occur but sets a strict limit on it.

Statutory Authority:

Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5)(b): An attack is indiscriminate (and thus prohibited) if it "may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

Also, in Rule 14 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) it recognises this principle as a customary law. This implies that it is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It requires a balancing exercise by the attacker, considering factors such as the accuracy of weapons, location of targets, and available intelligence.

Judicial Authority:

The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Kupreškić (2000) described proportionality as a fundamental rule requiring commanders to weigh anticipated civilian harm against military gain. In Galić, the Tribunal further elaborated on its application to shelling campaigns.

The ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons opinion (1996) affirmed proportionality and distinction as central to IHL. More recent jurisprudence, including ICTY cases like Prlić et al. (2017), has examined proportionality in the context of urban warfare and shelling, emphasizing that the assessment must be based on information reasonably available at the time.

Proportionality is closely linked to distinction: an attack that fails the proportionality test becomes unlawful even if directed at a valid target.

In conclusion, this principle guides against the use of means and methods of warfare which is above the military objectives in an armed conflict. Therefore an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause incidental civilian harm (loss of life, injury, or damage to civilian objects) that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

SI OLAWUNI.

Read More

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law : Principle of Distinction (1)

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law : Principle of Distinction (1)

International humanitarian law (IHL), otherwise known as the law of armed conflict or the law of war, is a branch of public international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflicts. Its primary purpose is to limit the effects of war by protecting persons who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities (such as civilians, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and medical personnel) and by restricting the means and methods of warfare. IHL applies in both international armed conflicts (between states) and non-international armed conflicts (between a state and non-state armed groups or between such groups), though the scope of rules may differ.

The basic principles of IHL are fundamental in armed conflict. They strike a balance between military necessity (legitimate military goals) and humanity (the obligation to minimize suffering and protect human dignity). The first principle that will be considered is the principle of distinction.

 

1. Principle of Distinction

The principle of distinction requires parties to an armed conflict to differentiate at all times between civilians (and civilian objects) and combatants (and military objectives). Attacks may only be directed against the latter; civilians and civilian objects must never be the object of attack. This is often described as one of the "cardinal principles" of IHL.

Statutory Authority

Pursuant to Article 48 Additional Protocol I (1977) :

 "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

Article 51(2): The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.

Article 52(2): Defines a military objective as one that "by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

This principle is also rooted in customary law (ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 1) and applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Indiscriminate attacks (those not directed at a specific military objective, or whose effects cannot be limited) are prohibited under Article 51(4) and (5).

Judicial Authority

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) identified distinction as a "cardinal principle" of IHL, forming part of the fabric of humanitarian law and applying to all weapons and methods of warfare.

Furthermore, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Prosecutor v. Galić (2003) convicted the accused for crimes involving indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Sarajevo, affirming that the prohibition on attacking the civilian population as such is a fundamental rule of customary IHL applicable in all conflicts. Similarly, in Prosecutor v. Strugar (2005), the ICTY addressed shelling of Dubrovnik, reinforcing the duty to distinguish.

The principle extends to prohibiting attacks on persons hors de combat (out of the fight, such as the wounded, surrendering soldiers, or detainees).

In conclusion, the cardinal principle of distinction in armed conflict advocates the protection of civilian and civilian objects during the conduct of the armed conflict. 

SI OLAWUNI.

Read More

Modern International Humanitarian Law: An Appraisal of the Historical Development of the Modern International Humanitarian Law.

 

Modern International Humanitarian Law: An Appraisal of the Historical Development of the Modern International Humanitarian Law.

Before delving into the historical background of the international humanitarian law (IHL), it is imperative to have a glimpse of the meaning of the concept of ‘international humanitarian law’ and its objectives. The Black’s Law Dictionary describes the international humanitarian law as the law dealing with such matters as the permissible use of weapons and other means of warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian population in armed conflicts, and generally the direct impact of war on human life and liberty. 

The objectives of international humanitarian law includes: 

1.  The protection of persons who were not or are no longer directly engage in hostility, (hors de combatant) such as the wounded, shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians. 

2. Generally, to moderate the devastating effects of armed conflict. 

3. To strike a balance between the attainment of the objects of armed conflict and the considerations of humanity.

The historical evolution of the modern international humanitarian law (IHL) is repleted with segmented events that happened at different epoch. Prior to the 19th century, efforts had been made to protect individuals from the devastating effects of war. Interestingly, it was until the second half of the 19th century that international treaties regulating warfare including rights and protection for victims of armed conflicts, emerged. Two men, Guillaume Henri Dufour - a Swiss army officer, and Henry Dunant a Swiss businessman are the recognised architects of the modern international humanitarian law.

The seminal conversation between the two men brought about an idea on the need for effective legal frameworks on the protection of certain individuals and permissible conduct in war. During the course of their conversation, Henri Dufour being a Swiss army officer boosted of the glorious events of war; how gratifying it was to witness casualties and countless number of lives being wasted away in war. However, in the opinion of Henry Dunant, the Swiss Businessman, it would be a good idea to use the meeting of army officers of different nations to discuss on the right conduct in war. This would birth a convention which would be inviolate and agreed upon by the army officers in the course of war. The conversation between these two men was seen as a seminal and pivotal movement in the development of modern international Humanitarian law. 

In 1859, Henry Dunant, the Swiss businessman while on his way to Italy, he witnessed the Battle of Solferino in which countless people were killed and many destruction were recorded. Having witnessed this war, he was moved to recount his experience in writing. He wrote a book entitled, ‘Memory of Solferino’ which was published in1862. His friend, Henri Dufuor being an army officer supported him. Dunant conceived the idea of establishing a group solely meant for the relief of the militarily wounded on the battle field. The combined effort of the two men resulted in the birth of the first Geneva Convention of 1864.  

With the passage of time, three persons joined the two men in their movement. They were Gustave Moynier, Louis Appia and Theodore Maunoir. They formed a group known as the ‘Committee of Five’ This group was later known as the ‘International Committee for the Relief of the Militarily Wounded’ in 1863. Later, this was metamorphosed to the ‘International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) in 1878. The ICRC is the foremost humanitarian movement and the watchdog of the international humanitarian law. 

Owing to the pressure from the five founding members of the ICRC, the Swiss Government called for a diplomatic congress in 1864 to discuss on the rules and conduct to be observed in war. In 1864 at Geneva the first Geneva convention was called and 16 countries attended the convention. At the end, 12 countries signed and and adopted the first Geneva convention ‘Convention on the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded Armies in the Field’ on 22 August 1864. This marked the birth of the modern international humanitarian law.

  

However, it is pertinent to state that the first Geneva Convention of 1864 was not the first law on war as there was the Lieber Code of 1863. This code did not enjoy universal application as it was limited to only soldiers fighting for the Union during the American Civil War. 

 

The first Geneva Convention signified a milestone achievement in the development of international humanitarian law. It establishes the rules for protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel during wartime. The Convention, which was a multilateral treaty, codified and strengthened ancient, fragmentary and scattered laws and customs of war protecting wounded and sick combatants and those caring for them.

The first Geneva Convention of 1864 was characterised by:

1. Multilateral in nature as it is open to all countries

2. It is the first universal codified rules on the conduct of war

3. It is not discriminatory in the sense that it is made to protect the combatants of the belligerent states

4. Respect for and marking of medical personnel, transport and equipment using an emblem (a red cross on white background).

As a result of the lapses observed from the first Geneva Convention 1864, there arose a need for another convention. In 1886 at Geneva 35 countries converged to discuss on the development of the first Geneva Convention which had only 10 articles. At the Convention, 35 Articles were added to the first Geneva Convention which further provided for the passage of information between the hostile states in respect of the wounded prisoners of war . These information provisions evolved into today’s Central Prisoners of War Information Agency, and the Central Information Agency for Protected Persons (see the 1949 Geneva Convention III, article 123 and Geneva Convention IV, article 140, respectively). The Agencies are further improvements on the provision of article 14 of the 1907 Hague Regulation IV which provides that: ‘An inquiry office for prisoners of war is instituted … to reply to all inquiries about the prisoners….’ They collect information on prisoners of war and protected persons and transmit it to their states of origin or residence, informing not only the state but the families, of the status and whereabouts of loved ones held by the opposing side.

Between 1914-1918, the horrific and horrendous first Wold War occurred which resulted in the loss of lives and properties of millions of lives and properties. Partially, the cause of the war could be attributed to the omission of the prohibition of the use of force in the Geneva Convention 1864. At the end of the war in 1918, delegates from several countries of the world gathered together at Versailles in France, there the Treaty of Versailles was adopted on 28 June 1919. This was done in order to forestall the recurrence of the first world war casualties. However, there were loopholes in the treaty. The Treaty did not outlaw the use of force. The provision mandating nations to first explore pacific means of settlement of disputes in ways similar to arbitration (quite similar to the provision of The Hague Convention II which forbade war against a debtor state on the condition that it would submit itself to an arbitrational settlement) with a three month window for the delict state to make amends. If after the three months, the situation remains, then the delict state becomes the enemy of the entire League. 

The 1928 period witnessed the emergence of a pact called the Brain Kellog Pact 1928 which enjoined all parties states to abstain from the use of force and to adopt pacific means of settlement of dispute which is similar to arbitration.  

Between 1939-1945, the Second World War occurred which led to severe casualties and destruction of lives and properties. Critics attributed the cause of the first and second world wars to the volatile nature of the of the human rights which made it prone to gross abuse and violation at the material time. 

 

After the end of the second world war in 1945, the world leaders converged at New York to establish a peaceful world organization called United Nations. Pursuant to the Preamble of the United Nations Charter, the United Nations is formed primarily to save succeeding generations from war and to recognise and respect the fundamental rights of every human . During this moment there was a significant shift towards the universal recognition and protection of the rights of humans. In 1948, December 10, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was massively adopted by every nation. This was also done to forestall a recurrence of another horrendous war.   

Furthermore, in a bid to eradicate threat or use of force in the international system, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter provides that every state is to refrain from the threat or use of force in relation with other states. However, Article 51 of the Charter provides for an exception in respect to the right of self defence of a state subject to the approval of the Security Council. 

Owing to the unattainable task of complete eradication of armed conflict therefore, there is a need for a more wholesome rules in the interest of humanity whenever war happens. This brought about other diplomatic conference in Geneva in 1994 that gave birth to the four Geneva Conventions in a row, namely:

1. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; 

2. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; 

3. Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War;

 and 

4. Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 

Since the enactment of the above treaties there has been several treaties, which have helped, directly or indirectly in the development and the shaping of international humanitarian law.

In conclusion, the development of the modern international humanitarian law is divided into several epochs which are influenced by several incidents. The work of Henry Dunant, the Swiss businessman along with the other founding members of the ICRC cannot be underestimated in the development of the legal frameworks on the rule of war. This has contributed to the development of the modern international humanitarian law. Also, this legacy birthed the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is an uber-vibrant organisation in the international humanitarian law.   

Read More

Pathways to the Lawful Exercise of the Rights to Freedom of Expression and Peaceful Assembly and Association in Nigeria.

 Pathways to the Lawful Exercise of the Rights to Freedom of Expression and Peaceful Assembly and Association in Nigeria. 

Abstract

Nigeria is a democratic nation in which all things are permitted within the confines of justifiable limitations of the law. Owing to this, the Nigerian grundnorm makes provisions for basic rights which are categorically spelt out. In the light of this, this paper aims at looking into the pathways for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in Nigeria. The doctrinal method of research approach was adopted using the primary, secondary and virtual sources. The paper concluded by giving recommendations on how these basic rights can be exercised within the confines of reasonable justifiable limitations in a democratic society. Also, the popular misconception of the right to riot was corrected.

Keywords: Fundamental human rights, protest, rally, interest, society, orderliness. 

1.0 Introduction 

In every democratic and constitutional society, the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of peaceful and assembly, rally, protest and association of the people are expressly provided for and guaranteed in the constitution of such society. Owing to the global spread of democracy, each state in the global community has incorporated these basic inalienable and fundamental rights in their constitution. This implies that in every democratic society, the citizens have the freedom to express their opinion, and engage in a lawful and peaceful assembly or gathering to protest against bad government policies as it is believed that there is a social contract between the government and the people to see that the government is accountable to the people in respect of the administration of the common resources of the society. However, it is to be noted that this right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and is a qualified right as it can be lawfully restrained within the confines of law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.1

 The right to peaceful assembly, rally and peaceful protest is fully recognized as a fundamental right in western democracies such as the USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada and so forth. Public places such as Hyde Park, Trafalgar Square, the Houses of Parliament, and conference venues of political leaders and so forth, are paraded by individuals and persons carrying placard, billboard and other conspicuous things to show their concern for an unfavorable government decisions, actions, policies and also other unfavorable and unacceptable acts in the country. This is being done under the watchful eyes of the security agency to afford the protest being overtaken by unscrupulous groups and in order to avoid riot and breach of peace in the society. For instance, on the issue of racial discrimination in U.S.A, U.K and other European countries there have been many protests against this act by individuals and groups to express their concern on the issue.     

Here in Nigeria, the constitution provides for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The citizens of Nigeria have in various instances exercised this right to express their disapproval against many bad government policies, actions and other unacceptable social occurrences. The Nigerian Labour Congress, ASUU, NGO and other private persons had one time or the other engaged in protest in Nigeria. The EndSAR Protest of October, 2023 is also an illustration of example of protest being carried out in Nigeria. The right to lawful protest and gathering is guaranteed in Nigeria. However, while exercising this right, caution must be observed in order to avoid breach of peace and violation of other people’s right.   

2.0 Background to the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally, Protest and Association in Nigeria.

The writer would segment the provision of s.40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) into two parts. Firstly, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, gathering, rally and protest. Secondly, the right to form or join any lawful association of one's choice and seek for the propagation and protection of the interest and objectives of such lawful association whether social, political, religious, economic or educational etc. However, for the purpose of this article, the writer will focus on the first arm of the section which provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally gathering and protest. 

On the first arm of the constitutional provision of section 40 (supra), the right of every person is guaranteed for peaceful assembly otherwise called protest whether against the government, private persons, or any other entity. This right can be aligned with the s.39 which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the press. These two inalienable basic rights are fundamental and germane in a democratic institution. They avail the citizens opportunity to express their views, opinion, agitation, concerns, burdens, problems and needs to their representatives in government. 

The right to freedom of peaceful assembly otherwise called right to protest is only expressly obtainable and exercisable in a democratic society. Nigeria has been a democratic nation for more than two decades now and her citizens have been exercising this right with little or hardened restraint from the government. 

Going through the pages of the events of permissibility of the right to protest in Nigeria, it was observed that there had been a time whereby before this right could be exercised the police as an institution of the government had to give license to anyone who might want to exercise this basic right. Pursuant to section 6(2) of the Public Order Acts the police of the rank of Inspector or above was empowered to stop any assembly for which no license has been obtained. This was the archaic draconic law restraining the free exercise of the right to peaceful assembly otherwise called right to protest in Nigeria. It seems odd and unthinkable how the government would give license to peaceful assembly, gathering or protest that is against it. This was a gross violation of this fundamental human right then during the Dark Ages of the enjoyment of this right. 

In the case of CHUKWUMA V.C.O.P the Court of Appeal upheld the provision of the s.6 (2) of the Public Order Acts (supra) and held that the appellant required a police permit to hold the meeting of their association. With absolute reverence to the Justices of the Court of Appeal in this case, this decision was reached per incuriam because the honourable court either inadvertently or advertently failed to advert its mind to the constitutional provision of section 1(3) of the constitution which gives supremacy to the constitution above any other laws in Nigeria. The section provides, ‘If any law is inconsistent with the provision of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and such other law shall to the extent of inconsistency be void.’ This had been given judicial approval in the case of National Assembly v President of FRN.

However, section 6(2) of the Public Order Acts had been held null and void in the case of IGP V ANPP by the Court of Appeal and the court went further to examine the provisions of the constitution vis-a-vis the power of the police to insist on a permit before allowing peaceful meeting or protest and held as follows: 

The police have no powers under the act to cancel marches on the ground that the organizers have not obtained a license or permit. The learned counsel referred to the experience of the UK where all that is required under the public order act is to give six days noticed in advance to the police, so as to make adequate security arrangements for the protester or conveners of public meetings. The fear that any group may take over a peaceful protest cannot be a legal justification for banning or proscribing rallies or protest. There are no peculiarities that can justify the restriction of the right to hold public meetings without license.

Also in the case of Thomas v Collins a statute required a labour organizer to obtain a license before he could address an assembly of labour. The defendant unionist ignored the statute and spoke. His conviction for speaking without a license was overturned on appeal because the statute was an infringement of his constitutional rights to speak. He is not required to submit to the unconstitutional law, and apply for the license and be refused the right to speak before he can challenge the validity of the law. In the case JUSTICE WILEY B. RUTLEDGE vehemently and poignantly buttressed on the sanctity and necessity of this right thus:

The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There are some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly, which all citizens of the republic the nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede.

By virtue of s.40 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (supra) the right to peaceful assembly, rally, gathering, meetings and protest is guaranteed. This has been given uncorrupted judicial anointing and approval by the last hope of the common man (the law court). Furthermore, the court has gone further to remove the unlawful shackle and unnecessary restrictions that might be a hurdle to the free and lawful enjoyment and exercise of this inalienable right.

3.0 Pathway to Lawful exercise of the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest. 

It has been established that it will be unconstitutional for the government or any private individuals to hinder people from exercising their basic rights. However, an uncurtail freedom is disastrous. The citizens must know that the Nigerian Constitution only provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally and protest. Riot is unlawful by virtue of s.71 of the Criminal Code which provides that ‘Any person who takes part in a riot is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years’.

 According to Emeka Odikpo: 

In the context of right to protest, this remains an inalienable right of man, subject to non-interference with the right of others. Thus, if protesters can design a way to protest without interfering with such rights of third parties, such as right of way, then they do not need any permit to protest. 

In the exercise of this right to peaceful assembly, rally and protest caution must be observed as to see that this lawful demonstration doesn't lead to riot. Appropriate measures must be taken by the organizers to see that the assembly is peaceful in the stricto sensu of it so as not to lead to public disturbance, disorderliness and breach of peace in the society. 

The government will be justified if it takes measures reasonably justifiable in a democratic society to stop any gathering or meeting that is potentially unlawful and detrimental to the peace of the society. The Police and other law enforcement agencies may be deployed to stop or disperse an unlawful gathering; or a potentially explosive gathering. Also, pursuant to s. 275 of the Criminal Code, the police, peace officer or private individuals can intervene to prevent breach of peace by using reasonable force.

5.0 Recommendations for Lawful exercise of Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest in Nigeria. 

In order to reconcile the interests of the protesters, the government and the society at large, several measures must be put in place. Although the court has invalidated the statutory provision of obtaining license before engaging in any protest, yet the presence of security agencies during the course of the peaceful protest cannot be undermined. The reason for this is to prevent the peaceful protest, assembly, rally or gathering from being hijacked by miscreants. Also, police and other security agencies that may be present at the protest or rally must not be a terror. The purpose of having them around is to maintain orderliness and smooth running of the protest. This is what is obtainable in countries like U.K., U.S. A, France, Germany etc. However, should the lawful protest turned unlawful, the police and other security agencies are enjoined to use reasonable and professional force required in such circumstance to quell the unlawful protest. Right to life must be respected in all circumstances.

In addition, prevention is better than cure, the government itself should be quick and pragmatic in responding to the citizens’ outcry. The government is seemed as steward of the common goods and resources of the society. They must always be ready to give proper account of their stewardship. The ugly incident of End SAR Protest must not reoccur.

Lastly, video coverage of protest and full reportage in all media houses should be allowed in order for the public to be aware of it and not to be put in the dark. And to avoid the spread of rumor and bias reportage. This will lessen the probability of a peaceful protest metamorphosing to riot. 

6.0 Conclusion

Fundamental rights are basic liberties recognized and enshrined in the constitution. These rights are inalienable. However, they are to be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic society. The Nigerian grundnorm provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally, gathering, demonstration, protest and association. The law permits the government to take reasonable measures to forestall and stop riot and unlawful gathering or rally in the society. The writer has made some recommendations on how right to peaceful assembly, rally, demonstration and protest can be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic society. Right to peaceful assembly and association is fundamental, basic and inalienable for all citizens of Nigeria. 

REFERENCES

CHUKWUMA V.C.O.P (2005) JELR 52796 (CA). 

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

Criminal Code Act C. 38, 2004.

Ese Malemi, The Nigerian Constitutional Law (3rd edn, Princeton Publsihing Co 2017). 

Emeka Odikpo, Enforcement of Fundamental Right in Nigeria (Princeton & Associate Co Ltd 2020). 

IGP V ANPP (2007) 18 NWLR (PT1066) 457.

National Assembly v President of FRN (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt 824) 104 CA.

Public Order Acts Cap p 42, 2004.

Thomas v Collins 323US 516 (1914). 

SI OLAWUNI. 

Read More

Procedures for the Creation of New States in Nigeria: Constitutional Provision and Legal Framework.

 Procedures for the Creation of New States in Nigeria: Constitutional Provision and Legal Framework.

 The persistent agitation and outcry for the creation of more states in Nigeria is alarming. This is not a new desire but an age-long one. This article considers the political system of government practised in Nigeria, federalism, an overview of history of creation of states and the constitutional procedures for the creation of states in Nigeria. A careful consideration of these constitutional procedures showcase that the procedures are cumbersome and stringent. The aim of paper is to educate the agitators of creation of more states in Nigeria on the constitutional procedures of creation of states.Also, considering the ever-impossible realization of the desire owing to the stringent constitutional procedures, it is suggested that there should be a recourse to the amendment of the constitution as regards the political system practised in Nigeria. 

The creation of new states has been a significant aspect of the country's political evolution, often motivated by demands for ethnic equity, resource control, administrative convenience, and reduction of marginalisation. Since independence in 1960, when Nigeria had three regions, the number of subnational units has increased through various exercises, predominantly under military administrations. The last states were created in 1996, bringing the total to 36. Under the democratic dispensation since 1999, the process has proven extremely challenging due to stringent constitutional requirements, and no new state has been created as of January 2026.

Pursuant to section 2(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999( as amended), Nigeria is a federation consisting of states and Federal Capital Territory. Also, by virtue of 3(1) CFRN,1999 (as amended) there are 36 states in Nigeria. All the states along with the FCT are enumerated in the above section. 

 Break down of the Constitutional Procedures for the creation of States.

Section 8 (1) (a-d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is the only legal authority for the creation of new state in Nigeria. 

 

The procedure is as follows:

 1. Formal Request

A request for the creation of a new state must be submitted to the National Assembly. This request must be supported by at least a two-thirds majority of members representing the demanding area in:

(i) The Senate and the (ii) House of Representatives;

(iii) The relevant State House(s) of Assembly; and

(iv) The local government councils in the area. See s 8 (1) (a) 

2. Referendum

Upon receiving a valid request, the National Assembly directs the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum in the area demanding the new state. The proposal must be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the people in that area. See s 8 (1) (b) 

3. Approval by State

 Houses of Assembly

The certified result of the referendum must then be approved by a simple majority of all the States of the Federation, supported by a simple majority of members of their respective Houses of Assembly. This requires resolutions passed by simple majority in the Houses of Assembly of a majority of the 36 states (at least 19 states). See s 8 (1) (c) 

 4. Final Legislative Approval

The proposal must be approved by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives). The National Assembly then passes an Act creating the new state, including consequential provisions for its name, headquarters, and amendments to the Constitution's First Schedule. See 8 (1) (d)

 

Going by the above constitutional procedures, it means that creation of states is a national matter which requires national consensus. This is provided to prevent unilateral or regionally imposed changes. 

In conclusion, section 8 (1)(a-d) CFRN, 1999 (as amended) is the legal authority in respect to creation of states in Nigeria. All the laid down processes must be followed. It is a bitter truth that the procedures are cumbersome. To achieve such a task in a country like ours which is divided with several factors such as ethnicity, regionalism, religions etc it is impossible. However, there is a way out from the conundrum. The agitators should consider seeking for the amendment of this particular section. Though this may seem strenuous too considering the provision of section 9 (3&4) CFRN, 1999 (as amended). From my book, seeking for the amendment of the constitution as regards the political system practised in Nigeria is more achievable than clamouring for creation of states.

San Afflatus. 

Sa

Read More

Test of Territorial Jurisdiction: The Application of the Effects Principle in the US Military Operation in Venezuela.

 

Test of Territorial Jurisdiction: The Application of the Effects Principle in the US Military Operation in Venezuela. 

The effects principle is a concept in international law that allows a state to exercise prescriptive jurisdiction over conduct occurring outside its borders if that conduct produces direct, substantial, and foreseeable effects within its territory. This principle originated from the antitrust contexts (e.g., the U.S. case United States v. Aluminum Co. of America in 1945), it has been extended to other areas like criminal law, particularly in cases involving transnational crimes such as drug trafficking. 

This doctrine provides a legal basis for a country like the United States to apply its domestic laws extraterritorially, but it does not authorize enforcement actions (e.g., arrests or military interventions) on foreign soil without consent, which are governed by separate rules on sovereignty and the use of force.

In the context of the U.S. military operation on January 3, 2026, which resulted in the capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, the effects doctrine primarily applies to the jurisdictional basis for the U.S. criminal charges against them, rather than the military action itself.

Application of the Effects Principle to the Charges

The U.S. indictment against Maduro and Flores, unsealed in the Southern District of New York, includes charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such weapons. These supersede a 2020 indictment on similar grounds. The allegations center on Maduro's alleged involvement in the "Cartel of the Suns," a Venezuelan military-linked group accused of facilitating cocaine shipments from Venezuela through routes that ultimately affect the U.S. (e.g., drug imports contributing to public health crises, violence, and economic harm).

The effects principle justifies the U.S. applying its laws (e.g., under the Controlled Substances Act and anti-terrorism statutes) to Maduro's conduct in Venezuela because the alleged activities—conspiring to flood the U.S. with narcotics—have direct and substantial effects on U.S. territory, such as increased drug addiction, overdose deaths, and related criminal activity. U.S. courts have long upheld this in drug cases, viewing intent to cause harm in the U.S. as sufficient for jurisdiction, even if the defendant never set foot there (e.g., precedents like United States v. Noriega and various cartel prosecutions). This aligns with broader U.S. practice in transnational crimes, where effects-based jurisdiction avoids the need for territorial presence.

While the doctrine supports the charging and potential trial of Maduro, it does not extend to the method of capture. Enforcement jurisdiction (e.g., arrests abroad) requires the host state's consent under international law, absent which it violates territorial sovereignty (per the Lotus case and UN Charter Article 2(4)).

The U.S. operation lacked Venezuelan consent, making it a breach of sovereignty and potentially an unlawful use of force, not self-defense (as drug trafficking does not constitute an "armed attack" under Article 51). U.S. courts may still proceed under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which allows trials despite unlawful abductions (e.g., U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain in 1992).

 Critics argue the operation sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian states to justify similar interventions, undermining the UN Charter.

In summary, the effects doctrine underpins the U.S. legal authority to indict Maduro based on the domestic impacts of his alleged crimes, but the military "invasion" aspect raises separate violations of international law on force and sovereignty.

San Afflatus.

Read More

A PASSIONATE APPEAL TO THE VIOLATORS AND SUPPORTERS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NORTHERN NIGERIA.

CLASFON NATIONAL RELIGIOUS ESSAY COMPETITION: A PASSIONATE APPEAL TO THE VIOLATORS AND SUPPORTERS OF RELIGIOUS

FREEDOM RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NORTHERN NIGERIA.

In the spirit of charity to all, malice to none, 1 I write this passionate appeal letter to

the conscience and heart of the violators and supporters of religious freedom rights

violations in northern Nigeria. Our Dear Motherland, Nigeria, is a variegated detail

interwoven with the varieties of diverse beliefs, ethnicities, languages and cultures.

Simply put, Nigeria is heterogeneous.2 However, in Northern Nigeria,3 this blessing of

multiplicity is being fought against by uncontroverted systematic, ongoing, and

outrageous violations of religious freedom. The prevalence of these vainglorious acts

injures the tender soul of our dear nation and threatens the very core of unity,

peaceful and meaningful co-existence we love.4

Pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as

amended) it provides that every citizen has the right to freedom of thought,

conscience, and religion.5 This is more than a legal provision but an inherent right of

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), s 38.every Nigerian—Christian, Muslim, traditionalist, humanist, or otherwise—to live and

worship without fear. The reverse is the case in the northern states; the enforcement

of blasphemy laws6 and Shari’a7 -based legal frameworks has led to the prosecution,

imprisonment, and even death of individuals for expressing their beliefs or daring to

differ.8 These laws, often misapplied to non-Muslims, defy Nigeria’s secular

foundation9 and breed division where there should be harmony.10

Over 13,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria between 2015 and 2023, making it

the deadliest country for Christians worldwide.11 Similarly, Muslims, too, suffer under

the weight of extremist violence from groups like Boko Haram, Islamic State West

Africa Province (ISWAP), and Lakurawa, who impose their interpretations of faith

through terror. Traditionalists and humanists face discrimination and attacks, their

shrines and voices silenced.12 This blatant occurrence of violence and intolerance

does not showcase or glorify any faith; it whittles us down.

To The Violators—State and Non-State Actors Alike:

Your actions and inactions (either directly or indirectly) through enforcing of

unconstitutional laws, keeping mute in cases of mob violence, or carrying out attacks

in the name of religion— exhibit a total betrayal to the essence of humanity . The

brutal killings, kidnappings, and forced conversions carried out by Fulani militants,

Boko Haram, and others heightened the frequency of air of hostility, fear and

division, not divine favor. The case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu,13 a Christian student

killed by a mob in Sokoto in 2022 for alleged blasphemy, and the subsequent

detention of Rhoda Jatau14 for sharing a message condemning the act, are stark

reminders of the injustice that festers when religious intolerance is allowed to thrive.

You erroneously believe your actions defend your faith, but they water down the core

principles of justice, compassion, and peaceful coexistence that all great faiths

uphold. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) spoke of mercy15 and justice16, just

as Jesus Christ preached love17 and forgiveness18 . Similarly, the traditional religion of

our forefathers teaches unity, tolerance and peace. None of these beliefs system

glorifies violence or the suppression of freedom of worship of another person.

Every religion preaches love and unity. The Quran says, “Let there be no compulsion

in religion…” (Qur’an 2:256). The Bible teaches, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

(Mark 12:31). How then are strife, hostility and violence among us? What then

justifies the burning of churches, the banning of Christian fellowships in universities,

the harassment of Muslims who reject extremism, or the brutal killing of innocents in

the name of “defending faith” or “fighting for God”? Peace must be restored in the

nooks and crannies of northern Nigeria. All hands must be on deck to achieve this.

To the supporters and the silent:

The hottest part of hell is reserved for those who keep quiet in case of injustice. Your

inaction heightens this crisis. At this instance, hands of supplication are all directed

at the Nigeria’s government, individuals, religious institutions, and NGO’s who always

 find solace in keeping mute whenever issue of violations of freedom of religion arises.

The welfare and security of the people are the primary purpose of government19. The

lackadaisical, nonchalant and abrupt failure of authorities to investigate and or

prosecute those alleged to be responsible for mob killings or attacks on religious sites,

send a message that such vainglorious acts are permissible. The hottest part of hell is

reserved for those who keep quiet in cases of injustice.

A Clarion call to action, tolerance, peaceful co-existence and unity:

I beseech you all to reflect on the motto of Nigeria that says, “Unity and faith, peace,

and progress …” 20. Let us all imbibe the spirit of tolerance, love and unity for the

betterment of our nation. One Nation, Great People.

To the violators: Dear Brothers and Sisters, let us embrace peace and desist from

attacks, dismantle the systems of oppression, and uphold the rule of law and the

motto of the Nation. Work to abrogate laws that criminalize and gag freedom of

expression, thought and religion, and ensure that Shari’a courts respect the rights of

all Nigerians, regardless of faith.

To the supporters and the silent: Open your mouth wide and cry out for justice,

plead for justice and accountability, and form an alliance with those that are

persecuted for their beliefs.

To the government: Gear up to your constitutional responsibilities, diligently

investigate and prosecute perpetrators of violence. Honor Nigeria’s constitutional

commitment to secularism21 and religious freedom.22

A vision for hope:

There is a great deal of strength in diversity. Nigeria’s diversity is a blessing if

properly utilized. There can be peaceful co-existence among the various beliefs. Faith

should be used to foster unity and not division. Thanks to Nigerian Inter-Religious

Council (NIREC)23 who has been seeking for mutual understanding among the various

religions in Nigeria. Also, let us borrow a leaf from the United States of America in

using community-based initiatives in Kaduna and Plateau to foster reconciliation and

peace building.

In oneness, we can end the persistent violence and violation that has become a clog

in the wheel of progress and peace of Nigeria. Behold, how good and pleasant it is for

brethren to dwell together in unity!24

1 National Park Service, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (Washington, 18 April 2020)

<https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm>accessed 3 August

2025.

2 US Terngu and UR Terngu, Conflict Management in a heterogeneous society: The Role of Social

Studies

Education<https://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/teacher%20perspective/CONFLICT%20MAN

AGEMENT%20IN%20A%20HETEROGENEOUS%20SOCIETY.pdf> accessed 3 August 2025.

3 US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIF), Factsheet: violent Islamist Groups in

Northern Nigeria (London, 1 February 2024) <https://www.uscirf.gov/publication/factsheet-violent

islamist-groups-northern-nigeria> accessed 3 August 2025.

4 ibid.

5 ibid.

6 Each of the northern state has its own Sharia Penal Code. However, in March 2002, these laws were

harmonized by the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, to produce what is

known as the “Harmonized Sharia Penal Code”, 2002. For Religious offences see the Harmonized Sharia

Penal Code, 2002, ss 402-406.

7 Sharia is the body of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and examples of Prophet

Mohammed (S.A.W).

8 Global Christian Relief, Christian Persecution in Nigeria <https://globalchristianrelief.org/christian

persecution/countries/nigeria/> accessed 3 August 2025.

9 CFRN, 1999 (as amended) (n 5) s 10.

10 Global Christian Relief (n 8).

11 Nk Chimtom, What is happening to Christianity in Nigeria is incomprehensible The Catholic World

Report (Cameroon, 18 July 2025) <https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/18/What-is

happening-to-christianity-in-Nigeria-is-incomprehensible> accessed 3 August 2025.

12 House of Commons Library, Freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria (London, 1 February 2024)

<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-breifings/cdp-2024-0024/ >accessed 3 August 2025. 

13 O Brian, Pray now! Nigerian student brutally murdered for sharing Jesus 2022 Global Christian Relief

(18 May 2022) <https://globalchristianrelief.org/christian-persecution/countries/nigeria/> accessed 3

August 2025.

14 Alliance Defending Freedom International, Religious Freedom, Freedom of Expression

<https://adfinternational.org/cases/rhoda-jatau-nigeria> accessed 3 August 2025.

15 Quran 29:53 says, “Say, O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not

despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the

Merciful.”

16 ibid. 5:8; 4: 135; 16:90; 55:7-9.

17 Mathew 22:36-40; Colossian 3:14; 1 Corinthians 16:14.

18 ibid. 6:13-15; 18:35; Mark 11:25-26; Luke 6:37.

19CFRN, 1999 (n 5) s 14 (2) (b).

20 ibid. s 15(1).

21 ibid. s 10.

22 ibid. s 38.

23 Nigerian Inter-religious Council NIREC is a voluntary association made up of 50 members (25

Christians and 25 Muslims) formed by the representatives of the two principal religions (Christianity and

Islam), on the 11th September, 1999.

24 Psalm 133:1.

OLAWUNI SAMUEL IDOWU.

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, WUKARI.

olawunisamuel440@gmail.com

09161107755

Read More