INTRODUCTION
In our last outing in this treatise, we started with a brief introduction of the subject matter, after which we delved into the following sub-topics: Public Interest Litigation (PIL); Rule of Law; Significance in Nigeria’s Socio-political Context; Thesis Statement; we later x-rayed the Right to Development in the Nigerian Context, focusing on Origin and Definition under International Law; Constitutional Silence: Implicit vs. Explicit Recognition; Socio-economic Rights in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution; Justifiability, Debate and Attempts at Enforcement; and Role of ECOWAS Court Decisions. We also discussed Public Interest Litigation as a Tool for Enforcing the Right to Development with emphasis on: Defining the Rule of Law (Dicey, Constitutionalism, Judicial Independence); Does PIL Promote or Undermine the Rule of Law?; Weak Enforcement of Judgments & Executive Non-compliance (Dasuki case); Tensions Between Populist Litigation and Strict Legalism; we later concluded with some case studies and examples – SERAP v. Federal Government (Mismanagement of Education Budget) and Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Legacy and the Ogoni Nine: Environment as Development Right. Today, we shall continue with same – looking at the cases of ECOWAS Judgment in SERAP v. Nigeria (2010): Education Rights; Public Interest Litigation Advocated or Led by Mike Ozekhome, SAN. After which we shall take a look at some challenges and fashion out the ways forward vide Legal Standing and Procedural Bottlenecks; Need for Constitutional Amendment to Enforce Chapter II; Judicial Independence and Political Will; Enhancing Legal Aid and Public Interest Lawyering and Coordinated Reform Strategy, we shall then conclude with the deep interconnection between development, justice, and the rule of law in Nigeria. Please read on.
C. ECOWAS Judgment in SERAP v. Nigeria (2010): Education Rights
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1718806029429-0’); });
As earlier noted, this landmark judgment reaffirmed that Nigeria’s failure to guarantee free basic education violated African Charter rights. Despite the Charter’s binding nature, Nigeria’s domestic legal framework and executive apathy meant that implementation was uneven—demonstrating both the power and limitations of regional jurisprudence in advancing development rights.
D. Public Interest Litigation Advocated or Led by Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has been in the vanguard of PIL advocacy in Nigeria. As a co-founder of Civil Liberties Organization and the Universal Defenders of Justice Initiative, he has fought high-profile PIL cases and penned key essays on the role of litigation in promoting socio-economic rights and rule of law (Mike Ozekhome’s advocacy, PIL leadership roles (Wikipedia page – Civil Liberties Organization)). His writings frequently explore the intersections of PIL, governance, and constitutionalism in Nigeria.
NOW THIS
CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD
A. Legal Standing and Procedural Bottlenecks
Despite judicial strides in liberalizing locus standi through cases like COPW v. NNPC and rules like Rule 3(e) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Nigerian courts continue to exhibit uneven practice. In Edun v. Governor of Delta State (2021) LPELR-53369(CA), the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim of a concerned citizen against a state law on pensions, reiterating restrictive standing rules—demanding pecuniary or special damage over and above that of the general public. Such judicial resistance impedes public interest litigation, enables premature dismissals, and discourages NGOs and citizens from initiating PIL on socio-economic and environmental rights issues (Edun v. Governor of Delta State & Ors, Court of Appeal (2024) – restrictive locus standi upheld due to lack of special damage). Moreover, litigation is further obstructed by procedural hurdles: strict limitation statutes, high court fees, technical filings, and protracted preliminary objections all pose obstacles to access to justice.
B. Need for Constitution Amendment to Enforce Chapter II
While Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution establishes desirable policies (education, health, housing), Section 6(6)(c) expressly bars courts from entertaining any enforcement suit on these directives.
This legal fiction leaves citizens with aspirational rights but no legal recourse. Notably, in Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that turning non-justiciable directives into binding rights would require enabling legislation by the National Assembly (Section 6(6)(c) and jurisprudence on Chapter II – enforcement barred). The denial of enforceability under Section 6(6)(c) also precludes fundamental progress in socio-economic litigation. Legal scholars like Antia and Shehu argue for constitutional amendment to either remove Section 6(6)(c) or for targeted legislation under the Exclusive Legislative List (Item 60(a)) to domesticate and enforce Chapter II rights. See AG Ondo State v. AG Federation & Ors (2002) 27 WRN 1 (SC).
C. Judicial Independence and Political Will
A robust judiciary is essential for PIL viability. The courts must not only interpret PIL-friendly doctrines but also defend their rulings from executive influence. However, appointment politicization, inadequate budget allocations, and threats to judicial tenure undermine impartiality (Antia, “Arguments Against Non-Justiciable Status of Chapter II”, SSRN (2024); Shehu, AHRLJ (2013)). Even when courts deliver favorable rulings, political actors often ignore or undermine them. A pattern emerges: delayed implementation, lack of enforcement, or bureaucratic foot-dragging dominates responses to judgments requiring policy reforms—be it education, environmental cleanup, or public budgeting (Observations on judicial funding and appointments limiting impartiality – Vanguard commentary on judicial independence). Judicial robustness is also contingent upon political will: without executive cooperation or follow-through, PILs become hollow victories (Reports on non-compliance with ECOWAS court rulings – Serap-Nigeria, Vanguard.).
D. Enhancing Legal Aid and Public Interest Lawyering
Building a vibrant public interest litigation ecosystem requires investment in legal aid infrastructure. NGOs like SERAP, CLEEN Foundation, and Citizens’ Gavel, along with pro bono units within law firms, are critical but under-resourced (Institutional inertia described in LawCare and academic analyses.). To sustain PIL impact, systematic training for public law lawyers, senior advocates, and judges is essential. This includes education in socio-economic rights, procedural skills, advocacy tactics, and enforcement strategies. Institutional support—through public interest legal clinics, university partnerships, and judicial training workshops—can amplify advocacy reach and strategic coordination (Ebbo Achimugu, “Nigeria’s PIL NGOs and Legal Aid”, University of Lagos Policy Forum.).
E. Coordinated Reform Strategy
Implementing these changes demands a multi-faceted approach:
1.Constitutional / legislative reform – Eliminate or revise Section 6(6)(c) and enforce Directive Principles through binding national instruments.
2.Judicial training and procedural reform – Standardize PIL-friendly standing thresholds and procedure across courts.
3.Civil society capacity building – Establish pro bono networks, fund PIL litigation, institutionalize mentorship and strategic litigation support.
Executive accountability mechanisms – Develop legal frameworks or monitoring bodies to ensure compliance with court and regional rulings, potentially linked to budgetary oversight (Experts’ recommendations on coordinated reform strategy – SSRN analysis, LawPavilion proposals.).
AND THIS
VII. CONCLUSION
This study underscores the deep interconnection between development, justice, and the rule of law in Nigeria. The right to development, encompassing education, health, environment, and livelihoods, relies not just on visionary constitutional drafting but on enforceable legal frameworks. With courts historically unwilling or unable to enforce socio-economic entitlements, public interest litigation has emerged as a vital—but partial—remedy. PIL has expanded standing rules, activated international and regional jurisprudence (e.g., ECOWAS judgments), and given voice to marginalized groups. Yet, structural barriers—procedural technicalities, constitutional inflexibilities, weak judicial independence, and political indifference—stay the promise of justice.
Therefore, PIL must be recognized as one essential component within a broader reform agenda. Achieving meaningful development and strengthening Nigeria’s rule of law requires:
• Constitutional and legislative amendments to enforce Chapter II socio-economic rights.
• Institutional support for civil society lawyers and NGOs.
• Judicial independence and political will to respect court rulings.
• Mechanisms ensuring enforcement and accountability.
Only through cohesive reform—linking legal, institutional, and political dimensions—can PIL fulfill its promise. The aim must not be isolated litigation victories but structural transformation: where development becomes a justiciable right, enforcement mechanisms function, and the judiciary, legislature, and executive operate within a genuine rule-of-law framework. (The end).
Thought for the week
“Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance”.
– Ban Ki-moon
“Sustainable development is a fundamental break that’s going to reshuffle the entire deck. There are companies today that are going to dominate in the future simply because they understand”
– Francois-Henri Pinault
The post Right to development, public interest litigation and rule of law in Nigeria (2) appeared first on The Sun Nigeria.
