Keynote Speech delivered on 2nd July, 2025 at Liberal Chambers Symposium, Liberal Chambers, Law Students Association, University of Abuja Chapter)
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
By Obioma Ezenwobodo LL.M
Introduction
Social justice is an idea that everyone should have equal economic, political, and social rights, privileges, and opportunities in society. Social justice exists to address social injustice prevalent in society brought about by human conduct and actions. It therefore seeks to address social wrongs existing in key developmental areas, including the justice system, gender, education, politics, economy, education, access to resources, and others. Principally, social justice is often termed as rendering to each what is his or her own or due by right. What is today known as social justice started in the 19th century during the industrial revolution as measures were introduced to address issues of exploitation of low-cadre workers, eliminate exploitation, redistribute wealth, and address economic distress. Presently, social justice focuses more on human rights protections, access to resources, equity, diversity, and participation in government.
Pre-Independence Era
Nigeria, a country with a projected population of above 200 million people, is a creation of British Colonialists in 1914 when the Southern and Northern protectorates were amalgamated. The British ruled the country up until 1st October 1960, when Nigeria was granted independence. Before the grant of the independence, there were a lot of protests for social justice like the Aba Women’s Riots of 1929 that boarders on grievances over taxes imposed on women, forced labour and corrupt practices and, the agitations by some minority groups who expressed fears that when the British Colonists transfer power to Nigerians, the majority groups would ride rough shod on their rights, liberties and social justice which might lead to state of domination and abuse. As a bulwark against these agitations, a Commission was set up to look into these issues. The Commission recommended the inclusion of human rights provisions in the constitution to prevent steady deterioration in standards of freedom and unobtrusive encroachment of government on individuals’ rights. Ever since Nigeria’s independence, Human Rights provisions have always occupied very important positions in the nation’s Constitutions, ranging from the 1960 Independence Constitution, the 1963 Republican Constitution, the 1979 Constitution, the 1989 Constitution, and the 1999 Constitution.
Post-Independence Era
After Nigerian independence in 1960, which ushered in parliamentary democratic government, came a military interregnum in 1966 that brought about a series of military rules with intervention of full democratic governance in 1979 – 1983 and finally in 1999 till date. The military rules seriously undermined social justice, the rule of law, human rights, economic emancipation, the evolution of civic rights, and good governance, as they were unaccountable and despotic.
Military Rule Era
The agitation for social justice found its root during the military interregnum with the emergence of public interest litigation (PIL), usually litigated by lawyers who approached the court to champion issues relating to social justice and order. Up until this time, and going by the common law principle, the protection and enforcement of social justice or public rights was the exclusive preserve of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) or that of the State, and not by lawyers, litigants, or activists. But due to the ineffectiveness of the AGF in executing this task by virtue of being a member of the Federal Executive Arm that perpetuates many of these social injustices, private lawyers and advocates took it upon themselves to salvage the precarious social injustice condition. Some of the few notable legal advocacies that have positively impacted on social justice drive in the country are:
In Fawehimi v. Akilu (1982) 18 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 11) 1265 at 1301, the late irrepressible Chief Gani Fawehimi went to the High Court to ask for an order of mandamus to inter alia compel the D.P.P. of Lagos State to decide on whether or not he would prosecute the suspect in Dele Giwa’s murder. The High Court struck out his case on the ground that he lacked the locus standi to institute it. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed.
In General Sanni Abacha & Ors v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi, 32 S.C. 45/1997, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, a prominent human rights lawyer, was unlawfully detained by the military regime of General Sani Abacha under the guise of State security.33 He challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution and International Human rights instruments. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour, emphasizing that no government authority had the power to arbitrarily detain citizens without due process. This decision sent a strong message against executive impunity in Nigeria.
In the Director of State Security Service, DSS v. Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR pt 395, p. 314 SC, Olisa Agbakoba, a foremost social justice lawyer, was arrested at the Lagos Airport on his way to an international conference. He successfully challenged the breach of his right to freedom of movement by the State. The right to freedom of movement -the right to travel outside Nigeria is constitutionally protected.
In Femi Falana v. AGF & 2 Others Suit No. M/288/92 (unreported), judgment delivered on June 8, 1992, the Hon. Justice A. A Aka of the Lagos High Court ordered the production of Applicant from detention and that the Respondent should show cause why the Applicant should not be granted bail or released forthwith. The Respondents failed to comply with the Court order and his Lordship, condemning such ‘wanton abuse of executive power’, held that no citizen should be kept in custody at the pleasure of anyone in authority.
In AGF v. Ogunseitan & Others Suit No. LD/1799/92, judgment delivered on 2nd July, 1992, the AGF had sued the Bar Association to restrain it from boycotting the Courts in solidarity with the detained human rights activists. The Hon. Justice A. F. Adeyinka of the Lagos High Court held thus:
“I will not wait until my Order is disobeyed by the Federal Government before I protect the integrity of my Court and, indeed, all Courts in Nigeria.”
Current Democratic Dispensation
With the advent of the current democratic dispensation on 29th May, 1999, came attendant threats to social justice brought about by a lack of understanding of democratic ethos, undue quest/tussle for power, corruption, divisive policies and etcetera. The social justice drive has encompassed more advocates hitherto reserved for lawyers and a few activists. Human rights groups and Non-Governmental Organisations such as the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership (CACOL), Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reform (CODER) and among others, are the new entrants and they employ PIL in pushing and expanding the social justice space. Some of the interventions of legal advocacies or interventions for the broadening of the social justice space are:
In I.G.P VS A.N.P.P (2007) 18 NWLR (Part 1066) 457. Activist Femi Falana (as counsel) challenged the constitutionality of the Public Order Act, which makes it mandatory for a political party to obtain a permit for a public rally or meeting before the same can be allowed to hold, by the police authorities.
In Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/APP/41/23), the ECOWAS Court struck down two key blasphemy provisions in Kano State law as violations of international human rights standards. The Court specifically identified Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code as vague, failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes religious insult and therefore lacking the legal precision required under international human rights standards.
The ECOWAS Court of Justice has declared that the Nigerian government’s failure to enact laws and establish effective institutions to regulate oil companies and hold polluters accountable is a breach of the country’s international human rights obligations. The judgment is based on a case filed by MacArthur grantee, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project. The Court found that Nigeria violated articles 21 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights by failing to protect the Niger Delta and its people from the operations of oil companies that have for many years devastated the region.
In Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd & Ors 37 FHC/B/CS/53/05 (unreported), Jonah Gbemre, on behalf of the Iwherekan community in the Niger Delta, sued Shell and the Nigerian government over gas flaring, arguing it violated their fundamental rights to life and dignity. The Federal High Court ruled in favour of Gbemre, declaring gas flaring illegal and ordering its cessation. Thus, this legal advocacy addresses the environmental degradation and environmental injustices being suffered by oil-producing communities, thereby compelling corporate and State accountability to the host oil communities.
Importantly, judicial activism has influenced Nigeria’s federalism by redefining the relationship between the central government and subnational entities. Courts have addressed issues related to resource control, state autonomy, and fiscal federalism.
In the landmark case of Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia State [2002] NGSC 10 (Resource Control Case), several oil-producing States activated a legal advocacy drive for social justice by challenging the Federal government’s control over offshore oil resources and seeking greater State autonomy in resource management. The Supreme Court ruled that offshore oil revenues belonged to the Federal government, but States were entitled to derivation benefits under the Constitution. This matter influenced Nigeria’s federalism and has a direct impact on oil communities whose environments have been degraded and abused.
In Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1666) 518, the Supreme Court held that the appellant NGO had the standing to sue the respondent, thereby liberalizing or broadening the rule of standing. The Supreme Court specifically highlighted “that public spirited individuals and organizations can bring an action in courts against relevant public authorities and private entities to demand their compliance with relevant laws and to ensure the remediation, restoration and protection of the environment.”
In the suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/09/19 brought by SERAP, the ECOWAS Court ordered the Buhari’s government to repeal section 24 of the Cybercrime Act by deleting the provisions, consistent with Nigeria’s obligation under Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The court ruled that Section 24 of Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act is inconsistent and incompatible with Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party. The unlawful provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrime Act, among others, criminalise sending or causing to be sent an ‘offensive, insulting or annoying’ message via a computer system.
In Miss Omolola Olajide v. The Nigeria Police Force & Ors, Suit No: NICN/IK/14/2021 (Unreported). Sometime in January 2021, Miss Omolola Olajide of the Ekiti Police Command was dismissed by the Nigeria Police Force for getting pregnant while she was unmarried, in accordance with Section 127 of the Police Regulations made pursuant to the Police Establishment Act 2020. In a suit filed on behalf of Miss Omolola Olajide at the Akure Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court by our law firm, she challenged her dismissal on the ground that the Police authorities discriminated against her, since her male counterparts are not dismissed in similar circumstances. In a landmark judgment delivered on January 11, 2023, the presiding Judge, Justice D. K. Damulak, held that the Police Regulation which permits the dismissal of unmarried pregnant police women is discriminatory, illegal, null, and void, as it violates Section 42 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which has abolished discrimination on the basis of gender in Nigeria. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the National Industrial Court, the Inspector-General of Police filed an appeal against it at the Court of Appeal. However, the appeal was dismissed in the case of Incorporated Trustees NBA v. AG Federation (2024) LPELR 62208 (CA), where the Court of Appeal, per Oyewole JCA, held:
“It is unthinkable that the Nigerian Police of this day and age operates on the principle that female officers need to be specially moderated and regulated while their male counterparts are free. This is unacceptable in a decent and democratic society governed by the rule of law.
The argument that the deprivation involved was consented to by prospective female police officers, who cannot subsequently complain, flies in the face of the constitutional provisions expressly granting them the rights involved as citizens of this country.
The rights given go beyond those for the personal benefit of the individuals involved as could be waived by them. They are public rights, which accord with the demands of a fair, equitable and humane society. These are standards and values demanded of modern nations, and which are outside the purview of any individual to waive.
I therefore hold that the said regulations 126 and 127 are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 37 and 42 of the Constitution and are therefore null and void to the extent of their inconsistency pursuant to Section 1 (3) of the Constitution.”
Impediments to Legal Advocacy for Social Justice in Nigeria
- Locus Standi
The restrictive concept of locus standi is posing a challenge to access to justice and the realization of social justice goals. In India, this rigorous concept has been watered down and unnecessary restrictions removed to create an enabling ground for citizens to easily approach the court to ventilate their grievances. See Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. The Union of India (1982) AIR (SC) 1477 – 1478. In Nigeria, this restrictive concept still holds sway as applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Adesanya v. The President (1981) 2 NCLR 356, which was relied on as a proposition that a general interest common to all members or some sections of the community is not a litigable interest. However, this strict concept is being relaxed as exemplified in the case of AG. Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR Part 8, 483, where the Court allowed a father to challenge the entry of Nolle Prosequi by the State Solicitor General on a charge against those standing trial for unlawfully killing his son. Also, in the celebrated case of Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Another (1989) 2 NWLR 122, a leeway was created in criminal cases on the premise that every Nigerian was his brother’s keeper. Thus, a good the obligation of the government to provide adequate medical and health facilities for all persons under S. 17 of the Constitution can be enforced under S. 33 (1) of the Constitution, which provides that every citizen is guaranteed the right to life.
- Non-Justiciability of Socio-Economic Rights
The non-justifiability of the Fundamental Objective of Directive Principles of State Policy provided in Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) has watered down socio-justice rights beneficial to the citizens. In Okojie & Ors v. Attorney General of Lagos State (1981)2 NCLR 350, the application challenged the policy of the Lagos State Government to abolish private schools within the state claiming that it violated the right to education guaranteed under S. 16 (chapter II) of the 1979 Constitution which is impari-material with S. 18 (chapter 11) of the 1999 Constitution. The Court held that by Section 6 of the 1979 Constitution (which is impari-material with S. 6 of the 1999 Constitution), the provisions of chapter II of the Constitution were not enforceable and that it was not within the power of the court to make any pronouncement on them. Despite this drawback, successful attempts have been made to navigate the legalism inherent in the provision by relying on relevant provisions in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution and other relevant provisions in the Constitution to realise the essence of Chapter II. In Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Ondo State (2002) FWLR (Pt 111) 1072, the question was whether the National Assembly had the power to establish an Anti-Corruption agency called the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). The court was saddled with the task of interpreting the provisions of Section 15(5) of Chapter II of the 1999 constitution, which provides that “the state shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power”. In resolving this question, the court considered items 60(a) 67 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, and held that the National Assembly has exclusive power to make laws on issues bordering on the State’s power to abolish corruption and abuse of power which fall under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter II of the constitution.
- Overreliance on Litigation
Over-reliance on litigation as the only tool to attain a social justice drive could pose a problem or jeopardise the whole cause. Although litigation is an effective tool for achieving social change in society, it is not the only tool available, as there are other tools of protest, lobbying, legislative engagement, political mobilisation, mediation, negotiation, engagement, financial settlement, etc. This notion has been re-echoed by Femi Falana, who said that: “Over–reliance on courts diverts efforts from potentially more productive political strategies and dis-empowers the groups that lawyers are seeking to assist. The result is too much law and too little justice.” (See Public Interest Litigation (2) by Femi Falana published in the Vanguard Newspaper of December 31st, 2009).
- Lack of Funding
Lack of funds to execute this task is a great hindrance to the pursuit of social justice goals by legal advocates. Lack of funding hinders thorough research and investigation, also hinders accessing vital evidence, exhibits, and procuring witnesses to attest in courts.
- Disobedience to Courts’ Orders by Government
The refusal of the government to obey and execute the courts’ orders addressing issues relating to social justice is one that calls for great concern and remedy. The most difficult of all these is the refusal of the Attorney General of the Federation and those of the States to grant permission for bank accounts of government agencies to be garnished to realise court judgment sums or costs.
- Crackdown on Social Justice Advocates
The penchant of security agencies to be unnecessarily aggressive and oppressive against advocates for social justice has hindered the realisation of the social justice drive. This manifested during the EndSars protest. This ugly practice should be stopped as it is against democratic principles.
Conclusion
The analysis above has shown the great impact legal advocacy has had and the future it still present in deepening social justice in the society. As we reminisce on all these, let us bear in mind that there are still a whole lot of jobs waiting for us to undertake. As law students, aspiring lawyers, you have more and better opportunities and time, not just to consolidate on the existing framework but to deploy a more strategic, intentional, pragmatic, and technologically driven legal approach to exert more influence and make more impact in the pursuit of social justice.
As I draw the curtain, let us remember that as law students, lawyers in equity, we should live for the direction of the society. This position was lucidly captured by the late sage, Alexander Christopher Sapara Williams, the first indigenous Nigerian lawyer, called to the English Bar on November 17, 1879, when he stated:
“A lawyer lives for the direction of his people and the advancement of the cause of his country.”
Equally, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, former President of Ghana, also made a similar remark, thus:
“Africa needs many Lawyers always, provided, and, this is an essential proviso, that they are trained for the need of their people. They are needed not only on the Bench and at the Bar. They are needed in every sphere of Government, whether national or local. They are needed equally in industry and commerce, and our plans for State industrial and agricultural development will require the services, among others, of Lawyers. The subjects taught and the methods of teaching should, therefore, be positively directed towards training Lawyers to serve their communities.”
(Quoted by Nnamani, JSC, op cit P. 10. See also “The Role of the Judiciary in Plural Societies” (1985) 16 C.I.J.I. Bulletin, 4 J at 46).
“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ "Democracy Or Demoncrazy?", "Good Governance" And "Politics And Political Class": Order Prof. Ozekhome's Essential Trilogy Now 
📞 Enquiries: +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532 📧 Email: educodexl@gmail.com Follow the voice of wisdom. Read Prof. Mike Ozekhome. Be inspired. Be enlightened. Be empowered. ___________________________________________________________________ Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
