by Olaitan Babatunde
When a government agency violates someone’s rights, refuses to release public information or acts outside its legal powers, many Nigerians assume that challenging it in court is pointless. Government has lawyers, public institutions have influence, and litigation can be expensive and slow. Yet Nigerian citizens and civil society organisations have taken government bodies to court and obtained judgments requiring them to respect legal obligations. The more useful question is not whether government can be sued. It is which court or legal process applies, what evidence is needed and what remedy the law can provide.
The Constitution provides a route for enforcing fundamental rights. Chapter IV protects rights including life, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom from discrimination. Section 46 allows a person who alleges that a Chapter IV right has been, is being or is likely to be violated to apply to a High Court for redress, subject to the applicable rules and jurisdiction. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 also encourage public interest litigation in human rights matters. Their preamble provides for a more flexible approach to who may bring such cases, including applications made on behalf of others and by organisations working to protect human rights. This can make it possible to challenge certain violations that affect a community, rather than requiring every affected person to litigate separately. It does not mean every public grievance qualifies as a fundamental rights case. The right relied upon, the facts and the court’s jurisdiction still matter.
Consider the Twitter suspension. In June 2021, the Federal Government blocked access to Twitter in Nigeria. SERAP and other applicants challenged the action at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. In July 2022, the Court declared the suspension unlawful and found that it violated freedom of expression protections under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court directed Nigeria to take steps to prevent a repetition. The case illustrates how litigation can establish that government action violates protected rights and can produce an order requiring the state to change its conduct. It also shows that citizens may need to pursue remedies beyond the domestic court system where the relevant regional court has jurisdiction.
Another example concerns access to public information. In a case brought by SERAP against the Minister of Power, the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled in July 2019 that the failure to provide requested information about contractors, companies, payments and electricity projects breached obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. The case matters because accountability is not only about prosecuting corruption after it occurs. It is also about citizens being able to obtain records that allow them to examine public spending. The Freedom of Information Act provides a legal framework for requesting records from public institutions, subject to its provisions and exemptions. A refusal to provide information can therefore become a legal issue rather than simply a bureaucratic frustration.
Winning a case, however, is not the same as obtaining every outcome a claimant wants. A court may declare an action unlawful, order an agency to release information, direct a public body to comply with a legal duty or grant another remedy permitted by law. It may dismiss a claim if the evidence is insufficient, the wrong procedure was used, the court lacks jurisdiction or the legal requirements have not been met. Some judgments also require further steps before their practical effect is fully realised. Anyone considering litigation should distinguish between filing a case, obtaining judgment, securing an enforceable order and ensuring compliance. These are separate stages, and a successful case may still require careful follow through.
For a Nigerian who believes a government institution has violated their rights, a sensible starting point is to preserve evidence. Keep relevant letters, emails, official notices, receipts, photographs, dates and names of the institutions involved. Identify the specific right or legal obligation in question, and check whether a complaint procedure, information request, regulator or ombudsman can address the issue. Where court action may be necessary, consult a qualified lawyer or a reputable legal aid or human rights organisation to determine the appropriate procedure, deadlines, jurisdiction and likely costs. Some rights claims have specific procedural requirements, and waiting too long can complicate a case.
The important lesson is that government is not automatically beyond the reach of the courts. But legal action works best when it is grounded in a recognised right or legal duty, supported by evidence and brought through the correct procedure. A court case is not a guarantee of victory, and even a favourable judgment may not solve every underlying problem. Still, the ability to challenge unlawful government conduct is part of the constitutional system. Citizens do not have to rely only on petitions, complaints or public outrage when a legal remedy is available. They can ask the courts to determine whether the government has acted within the law, and sometimes the answer can make a real difference.
