STRATEGIC LITIGATION: USING THE LAW AS AN INSTRUMENT IN THE TRANSFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF WOMEN, GIRLS, CHILDREN, VULNERABLE AND MARGINALISED PERSONS IN NIGERIA

By Nbakpone, Bariledum Priscilia

Introduction

This article is centred on vulnerable and marginalised persons in Nigeria, particularly women, girls and children. Violence is not simply an isolated incident. It can be a pattern.

A girl under age may be sexually abused and then blamed for what happened to her. A woman experiencing domestic violence may be told to “endure” because the abuser is her husband. A survivor may report an assault to the authorities only to encounter indifference, delay or institutional barriers. A young mother may need healthcare, psychosocial support, shelter and legal assistance simultaneously, yet encounter these services in separate institutions that do not communicate effectively.

In such circumstances, the question is not only whether a particular offender can be prosecuted. The deeper question is:

What happens when the institutions established to protect vulnerable and marginalised persons fail to protect them?

This is where strategic litigation becomes important.

Strategic litigation uses carefully selected legal approaches to achieve objectives that go beyond securing justice for one individual. It seeks to clarify the law, challenge unlawful practices, hold institutions accountable, strengthen rights protection and, where necessary, compel systemic change.

For organisations working at the intersection of human rights, sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), child protection and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), strategic litigation can become a powerful instrument for transforming not only individual lives but also the institutions and systems that affect thousands of people.

Nigeria already possesses a substantial constitutional, statutory and regional human-rights framework capable of supporting such litigation. The challenge is often translating those legal guarantees into meaningful protection in the lives of ordinary persons.

What is Strategic Litigation?

Strategic litigation is litigation deliberately undertaken because the legal issue raised has implications beyond the immediate parties.

Ordinary litigation may primarily ask: “What remedy is this particular victim entitled to?”

Strategic litigation asks a broader question: “What legal or institutional change can this case produce so that other people do not suffer the same injustice?”

A successful strategic case may therefore result in:

judicial clarification of an uncertain area of law;
a declaration that an institutional practice is unlawful;
an injunction preventing continuing violations;
compensation or other remedies for survivors;
changes in government policy or administrative practice;
improved investigation and prosecution procedures;
better protection mechanisms for children and survivors;
accountability for public institutions;
recognition of discriminatory practices; and
the development of jurisprudence that can benefit future victims.

Strategic litigation is both a legal tool and a social justice strategy. It should, however, never lose sight of the human being at the centre of the case. A survivor must not become merely “the test case.” The dignity, safety, privacy, informed consent and welfare of the individual must remain fundamental throughout the litigation process.

Why Strategic Litigation Matters in Nigeria

Nigeria has enacted important laws protecting individuals against violence, discrimination and abuse.

At the constitutional level, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) protects fundamental rights including the right to life, dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy and family life, and freedom from discrimination. The National Human Rights Commission also identifies these rights as part of the fundamental rights protected under Chapter IV of the Constitution. ^[1]

Section 34(1) of the Constitution provides:

“Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person…”

The same provision prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Section 42 is particularly important for gender-equality litigation. It prohibits discrimination against a Nigerian citizen on grounds including sex, and extends to discriminatory laws or administrative actions.

These provisions provide an important constitutional foundation for challenging practices that violate the dignity or equality of women and girls. Yet the existence of a right on paper does not automatically mean the right is enjoyed in practice. This is one of the central reasons strategic litigation is necessary.

The Legal Framework for Strategic Litigation on SGBV in Nigeria

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

The Constitution remains the primary legal framework for fundamental-rights litigation. Among the most relevant provisions are:

Section 33 – Right to Life. Every person has a constitutionally protected right to life, subject to the limitations expressly recognised by law. Violence against women and girls can, in extreme circumstances, place this right directly at risk.
Section 34 – Right to Dignity of the Human Person. Particularly relevant to rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, torture, degrading treatment, forced or coercive practices and other forms of abuse.
Section 35 – Right to Personal Liberty. Unlawful detention, arbitrary arrest and other forms of unlawful restriction of liberty can be challenged under the Constitution.
Section 37 – Right to Privacy and Family Life. Relevant in cases involving the privacy, bodily autonomy and family life of women, girls and vulnerable persons.
Section 42 – Freedom from Discrimination. Gender discrimination can have profound consequences for access to education, employment, healthcare, justice and other opportunities. Strategic litigation can be used to challenge laws, policies and institutional practices that discriminate against women or girls.

A survivor of violence is not merely a complainant in a criminal case. She is a rights-holder whose dignity is protected by the Constitution.

B. The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015

The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (VAPP Act) represents one of Nigeria’s most significant legislative responses to violence. The Act prohibits various forms of violence in both public and private life and provides protection and remedies for victims. ^[2]

Its significance extends beyond punishment. The legislation reflects an important principle:

Violence is not simply a private family matter. It is a matter of public justice and human rights.

This is particularly important in a society where domestic violence has historically been treated by some as a “family affair” to be resolved within the home. Strategic litigation can help ensure that the protective provisions of anti-violence legislation are not merely words in a statute but mechanisms that produce practical protection.

However, Nigeria’s federal structure creates an important legal complication. The VAPP Act is federal legislation, and its operation is not automatically identical across all states. States have had to enact or adopt appropriate state-level legislation. The status of domestication has developed significantly over time, although implementation remains uneven. ^[3]

This creates a strategic litigation opportunity in itself. Where appropriate, civil society organisations can use litigation and advocacy to challenge implementation gaps, seek clarification of applicable state laws and push public institutions towards compliance with existing legal obligations.

Lagos State: A Key Legal Environment

For organisations operating in Lagos, the legal framework contains several important mechanisms for protecting survivors.

The Protection Against Domestic Violence Law of Lagos State 2007 expressly prohibits domestic violence. Section 1 provides:

“As from the commencement of this Law no person shall commit any act of domestic violence against any person.”

The law also provides for protection orders. Importantly, it recognises that survivors may need assistance from people and institutions other than lawyers. It permits, in appropriate circumstances, applications to be brought on behalf of a complainant by persons including counsellors, health service providers, police officers, social workers, organisations and teachers, subject to the statutory conditions. ^[4]

This recognises the reality that a survivor may first disclose violence to:

a doctor;
a nurse;
a social worker;
a teacher;
a counsellor;
an NGO worker;
a community worker; or
another trusted person.

The law therefore supports a model in which legal protection is connected to health, social welfare and community support systems. That connection should be strengthened rather than weakened.

The Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA)

Lagos has also developed an institutional framework for responding to sexual and domestic violence through the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA) and its enabling legislation. The Lagos State Ministry of Justice states that the DSVA is mandated to coordinate an end-to-end response to domestic and sexual violence, including reporting, initial contact with survivors, medical evaluation and care, forensic evidence collection, preliminary investigation, counselling, referrals, support and shelter services. ^[5]

This institutional model is extremely important. A survivor of sexual violence rarely needs only one service. She may need:

medical care + emergency protection + counselling + shelter + legal advice + forensic documentation + investigation + prosecution + social welfare support.

Strategic litigation should therefore consider the entire survivor pathway. If an institution’s failure at one point in that pathway causes serious harm, litigation may need to examine not only the immediate incident but also the institutional response.

Strategic Litigation and the African Charter

Nigeria’s strategic human-rights litigation does not have to rely exclusively on the Constitution. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has been domesticated into Nigerian law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. ^[6]

In Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 (SC), the Supreme Court affirmed the domestic legal force of the African Charter following its incorporation into Nigerian law. The Court recognised that the domesticated Charter forms part of Nigerian law and can be enforced by Nigerian courts. ^[7] The principle was also enunciated in Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) 1 at 26–27 (SC), concerning enforcement of Charter rights within Nigeria. ^[8]

The African Charter therefore provides another important foundation for rights-based litigation. Its provisions concerning dignity, equality, security, health, protection of the family and other rights can be deployed where appropriate to complement constitutional and statutory arguments.

Women’s Rights Under the African Human-Rights System

The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, commonly known as the Maputo Protocol, provides extensive protection for women’s rights, including rights relating to dignity, integrity and security, health, reproductive rights and protection against violence. Nigeria is a party to the Protocol, which entered into force internationally in 2005. ^[9]

However, lawyers undertaking litigation in Nigeria must carefully distinguish between:

treaties that Nigeria has ratified; and
international instruments that have been domesticated into Nigerian law.

Section 12 of the Constitution generally requires treaties to be enacted into law by the National Assembly before they have domestic legal force. Lawyers should not casually treat every international treaty ratified by Nigeria as automatically enforceable domestic legislation. Nevertheless, international and regional human-rights instruments remain highly relevant to advocacy, interpretation, policy development and Nigeria’s international obligations.

Strategic Litigation and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

Strategic litigation on SGBV cannot be separated entirely from sexual and reproductive health and rights. Violence frequently produces consequences extending far beyond the immediate physical injury. A survivor may experience:

unintended pregnancy;
sexually transmitted infections;
obstetric complications;
psychological trauma;
school interruption;
loss of employment;
homelessness;
social exclusion;
financial dependence;
stigma; and
long-term mental and emotional consequences.

For adolescent girls, the consequences can be even more profound. An adolescent who becomes pregnant following sexual abuse may simultaneously become a survivor, a patient, a child in need of protection and, potentially, a young mother requiring social and economic support.

The legal response must therefore be holistic. A justice system that prosecutes an offender but leaves the survivor without medical care, protection, shelter, education or psychosocial support may have achieved only part of the necessary justice.

Strategic Litigation Must Address Institutional Failure

One of the most important areas for strategic litigation in Nigeria is institutional accountability. Consider these situations:

The police refuse to properly investigate a reported sexual assault.
A health facility fails to document injuries.
A responsible institution ignores repeated complaints.
A public authority fails to provide a service required by law.
A protection order is ignored.
A child is repeatedly returned to an unsafe environment.

These situations raise questions beyond the conduct of the alleged perpetrator. They raise questions about state and institutional responsibility. Strategic litigation can ask:

What duty did the institution have?
What law created that duty?
Was the duty breached?
Did the breach contribute to the survivor’s harm?
What remedy is available?
How can the court prevent similar failures in the future?

This is where litigation can move from individual justice to systemic accountability.

Strategic Litigation Is Not Simply “Taking Government to Court”

Strategic litigation does not necessarily mean suing the government every time an institution fails. Litigation is a tool, not an end in itself. Sometimes the most strategic intervention may involve:

a protection order;
a fundamental-rights action;
judicial review;
a declaratory action;
an injunction;
a constitutional challenge;
enforcement of statutory duties;
an appeal designed to clarify a legal principle;
intervention as amicus curiae, where procedurally available; or
a public-interest action addressing a systemic practice.

In other circumstances, litigation may be combined with:

legislative advocacy;
policy reform;
media engagement;
community education;
institutional dialogue;
research;
strategic communications; and
survivor-support services.

The ultimate objective is sustainable change.

Strategic Litigation and Fundamental Rights Enforcement

Nigeria’s Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 ^[10] are particularly important in rights-based litigation. Where the facts disclose an infringement of a constitutionally protected fundamental right, lawyers may consider whether a fundamental-rights action provides an appropriate avenue for relief.

Potential remedies can include declarations, injunctions, damages and other appropriate orders depending on the circumstances of the case. The strength of such litigation often lies in changing the narrative. Instead of viewing a survivor solely through the lens of criminal law, the case can place the survivor’s constitutional identity at the centre:

She is a person whose dignity matters.
She is entitled to protection.
She is entitled to equal treatment.
She is entitled to access justice.
She is entitled to remedies where her rights are violated.

What Nigerian Jurisprudence Teaches Us

Nigerian courts have demonstrated that strategic rights litigation can produce broader legal consequences.

For example, in Miss Omolola Olajide v. Nigeria Police Force & Ors. (Unreported), Suit No. NICN/AK/14/2021, judgment delivered on 11 January 2023, the National Industrial Court considered discriminatory provisions affecting unmarried women police officers who became pregnant. The Court found the relevant provision inconsistent with Section 42 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the African Charter and held the discriminatory provision unconstitutional. ^[11]

The significance of such a case extends beyond the individual claimant. When a court invalidates a discriminatory institutional practice, the decision can affect the treatment of other persons subjected to the same practice. This is precisely one of the characteristics that makes litigation strategic. Similarly, Abacha v. Fawehinmi remains important because of its recognition of the enforceability of the domesticated African Charter within Nigeria. ^[7]

A well-selected case can help build the law for people who are not even parties to the litigation.

What Makes a Case Suitable for Strategic Litigation?

Not every case should become a strategic case. A responsible organisation should carefully assess whether litigation is in the best interests of the survivor and whether the case has the potential to advance a broader legal or institutional objective. Important questions include:

Is there a clear rights violation? There must be a credible legal foundation.
Is the issue systemic? Does the problem affect only one person, or is it part of a broader pattern?
Is there an identifiable legal gap? Perhaps the law is unclear, discriminatory or inadequately enforced.
Is there institutional failure? Has a public body or other institution failed to discharge a legal duty?
Can the court grant an effective remedy? A strategically interesting case is not necessarily a strategically useful case if the court lacks the power to provide meaningful relief.
Is the survivor willing and able to participate? Strategic litigation must be survivor-centred.
What are the risks? Potential risks include:
- retaliation;
- stigma;
- exposure of private information;
- emotional trauma;
- financial burden;
- delays;
- threats;
- media intrusion; and
- further institutional victimisation.

A case should never be pursued merely because it is legally interesting. The safety and dignity of the survivor must come first.

The Survivor Must Remain at the Centre

Strategic litigation can unintentionally reproduce the very harm it seeks to challenge if lawyers and organisations become more interested in the legal precedent than in the person. A survivor-centred approach requires:

Informed consent: the survivor should understand the purpose, risks and possible consequences of litigation.
Confidentiality: sensitive personal information must be handled carefully.
Safety planning: potential retaliation and threats must be assessed.
Trauma-informed practice: questioning and legal processes should avoid unnecessary re-traumatisation.
Participation: where appropriate, survivors should have meaningful involvement in decisions concerning their cases.
Access to support: legal representation should ideally connect the survivor with medical, psychosocial, shelter and social welfare services.

Strategic litigation should never mean: “We need a test case.” It should mean:

“We have a person whose rights have been violated, and through pursuing justice for her, we may also be able to prevent the same injustice from happening to others.”

That distinction is fundamental.

The Role of Health Institutions in Strategic Litigation

Health institutions occupy a particularly important position in the SGBV response chain. For many survivors, healthcare workers are among the first professionals to whom they disclose violence. Medical professionals may therefore play important roles in:

immediate treatment;
documentation;
forensic evidence;
referrals;
emergency contraception and other appropriate SRHR services;
psychosocial support;
safeguarding; and
coordination with relevant authorities.

This makes collaboration between civil-society organisations and health institutions particularly valuable. For organisations such as Vision Spring Initiatives, existing relationships with health and social-welfare actors can provide an important foundation for building stronger referral pathways. The objective should be to ensure that a vulnerable woman or girl does not have to navigate the entire justice and healthcare system alone.

Strategic Litigation Can Expose the “Implementation Gap”

Nigeria’s legal framework is substantial. Yet the existence of legislation does not automatically guarantee implementation. This is sometimes described as the implementation gap: the distance between what the law promises and what people actually experience. For example:

A law may provide protection against domestic violence, but a survivor may still struggle to obtain a protection order.
A policy may require coordinated SGBV services, but institutions may operate in isolation.
A criminal offence may exist, but investigations may be delayed.
A survivor may have a legal right to protection but lack access to a shelter.
A child may have statutory protection but remain exposed to abuse because responsible institutions fail to intervene.

These gaps create potential strategic litigation questions.

Litigation as a Tool for Institutional Alignment

Strategic litigation can be used to encourage institutions to align their practices with:

the Constitution;
applicable federal legislation;
state legislation;
judicial decisions;
human-rights obligations;
approved policies;
professional standards; and
established safeguarding procedures.

Where multiple institutions share responsibility, litigation can also illuminate the consequences of institutional fragmentation. For example:

Police → Health Facility → Social Welfare → Legal Services → Prosecution → Court → Shelter → Reintegration

A survivor should not disappear between these institutional doors. Strategic litigation can help ask whether the system as a whole is functioning as the law requires.

The Importance of Documentation and Evidence

Strategic litigation is ultimately litigation. Good intentions cannot substitute for evidence. Civil-society organisations involved in potential strategic cases should establish robust systems for:

incident documentation;
informed consent;
referral records;
medical documentation;
witness information;
correspondence with institutions;
complaint records;
police reports;
protection orders;
court documents;
institutional responses; and
evidence of repeated or systemic failures.

Patterns are particularly important. One complaint may demonstrate an individual failure. Ten similar complaints may reveal a systemic problem. Careful data collection can therefore help identify issues worthy of strategic intervention. However, organisations must ensure that data collection respects privacy, confidentiality and applicable data-protection requirements.

Strategic Litigation and the Nigeria Data Protection Framework

SGBV cases often contain some of the most sensitive categories of personal information. A survivor’s the following may all require careful protection:

medical history;
sexual history;
pregnancy status;
photographs;
address;
identity;
family information;
psychological records; and
legal documents.

Strategic litigation therefore requires a strong information-governance framework. The pursuit of justice should not expose a survivor to a second violation through careless handling or publication of sensitive information. Confidentiality must be treated as part of survivor protection rather than as a mere administrative requirement.

The Role of Public Interest Organisations

Civil-society organisations occupy a unique position in strategic litigation. They often see patterns that individual lawyers or institutions may not immediately see. An organisation working in communities may discover that:

the same police station repeatedly mishandles SGBV complaints;
survivors are repeatedly denied access to protection mechanisms;
certain vulnerable groups consistently face barriers to healthcare;
children are routinely excluded from appropriate protection services; or
a government policy disproportionately harms women or girls.

Such information can help identify systemic issues suitable for legal intervention. Organisations can also:

support survivors;
conduct research;
identify test cases;
provide legal referrals;
collaborate with specialist counsel;
monitor compliance with judgments;
engage institutions; and
advocate for law and policy reform.

Litigation Should Not End with Judgment

One of the greatest mistakes in strategic litigation is treating judgment as the end. It is often only the beginning. Suppose a court declares an institutional practice unlawful. The next questions are:

Has the practice actually stopped?
Has the institution changed its policy?
Have staff been trained?
Are affected people receiving remedies?
Is the judgment being implemented?
Has the institution complied with the court’s order?

Strategic litigation therefore requires post-judgment monitoring. An organisation may need to track:

implementation;
compliance;
institutional reforms;
subsequent cases;
survivor outcomes; and
whether the judgment has produced the intended systemic effect.

A legal victory that remains on paper is an incomplete victory.

Challenges to Strategic Litigation in Nigeria

Strategic litigation is powerful, but it is not easy.

Delays in the justice system: cases can take years to conclude.
Cost: litigation can require significant financial and human resources.
Retaliation and intimidation: survivors, witnesses and advocates may face threats.
Social stigma: women and girls who challenge abuse may face blame or social exclusion.
Institutional resistance: public institutions may resist scrutiny.
Evidential difficulties: SGBV cases can be difficult to prove, particularly where evidence is not preserved promptly.
Limited legal awareness: many survivors do not know the rights available to them.
Uneven legal frameworks: the applicable law can differ across states.
Implementation gaps: even a strong judgment may be difficult to implement without sustained monitoring.

These realities reinforce the need for careful case selection and multi-sectoral collaboration.

A Strategic Litigation Framework for Vision Spring Initiatives

For an organisation such as Vision Spring Initiatives, a strategic litigation programme could be structured around five broad stages.

Stage One: Identify the Problem

Document recurring violations affecting:

women;
girls;
adolescent mothers;
survivors of domestic and sexual violence;
persons with disabilities;
children; and
other vulnerable persons.

Stage Two: Identify the Legal Question

Ask:

What right has been violated?
What law creates the duty?
Who has failed to act?
Is there a discriminatory practice or institutional failure?

Stage Three: Assess the Case

Evaluate:

legal merits;
evidence;
jurisdiction;
remedies;
survivor consent;
safety;
institutional implications; and
potential precedent.

Stage Four: Litigate and Advocate

Litigation can be accompanied, where appropriate, by:

public education;
policy advocacy;
institutional engagement;
research;
media strategy;
community mobilisation; and
stakeholder engagement.

Stage Five: Monitor the Outcome

After judgment:

monitor compliance;
document institutional changes;
support the survivor;
evaluate impact; and
determine whether further legal action is necessary.

Strategic Litigation Must Be Ethical

There is a danger in treating strategic litigation as a numbers game. A case that produces an important precedent but causes unacceptable harm to a survivor cannot simply be called a success. Ethical strategic litigation should be:

survivor-centred;
rights-based;
evidence-driven;
trauma-informed;
inclusive;
confidential;
legally rigorous; and
focused on sustainable change.

The objective is not simply to win cases. It is to build a justice system in which fewer people need to become “test cases” in the first place.

A Call for Stronger Collaboration

The protection of women, girls and vulnerable persons cannot be achieved by lawyers alone. Nor can it be achieved by NGOs alone, or by the police, hospitals, social workers or courts acting independently. It requires collaboration. Government agencies, courts, law-enforcement agencies, health professionals, social workers, civil-society organisations, community leaders and survivors themselves all have roles to play.

In Lagos, institutions such as the Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency have already established mechanisms for coordinated SGBV response, including medical care, forensic processes, referrals, counselling and survivor support. ^[5] The next challenge is to ensure that these systems operate consistently, effectively and in a manner that places survivors at the centre.

The Future of Strategic Litigation in Nigeria

Nigeria’s legal landscape provides significant opportunities for strategic human-rights litigation:

The Constitution provides fundamental-rights protections.
The VAPP Act provides an important legislative framework at the federal level.
States have enacted different laws addressing domestic and gender-based violence.
Lagos has developed a specialised institutional response through the DSVA.
The African Charter provides an additional domesticated human-rights framework.
The courts have demonstrated that discriminatory institutional practices can be challenged through rights-based litigation.

The question now is how these legal tools can be used more strategically. Future litigation could focus on issues such as:

institutional responses to domestic violence;
sexual violence against children;
barriers to justice for survivors;
discriminatory institutional policies;
access to healthcare following sexual violence;
protection of adolescent girls;
harmful traditional practices;
survivor access to shelters;
institutional accountability;
protection of vulnerable persons; and
implementation of existing court judgments and statutory duties.

Such litigation should be undertaken thoughtfully, collaboratively and with a clear theory of change.

Conclusion: From Individual Justice to Systemic Change

Strategic litigation is ultimately about recognising that one person’s injustice may reveal a problem affecting many people.

A woman who is denied protection may represent hundreds of other women facing the same institutional barrier.
A girl whose complaint is ignored may expose a systemic failure in child protection.
A survivor who cannot access appropriate healthcare may reveal a gap affecting countless other survivors.
A discriminatory institutional policy may silently disadvantage an entire class of women.

The law gives us an opportunity to confront these failures. But strategic litigation is not simply about taking cases to court. It is about using the law deliberately, responsibly and courageously to transform systems.

For Vision Spring Initiatives, this approach aligns naturally with a commitment to advancing and protecting human rights, strengthening institutional responses to SGBV and ensuring that vulnerable persons can access justice, protection, healthcare and dignity.

The ultimate objective should be simple:

Justice for the individual.
Accountability for institutions.
Reform for society.
Protection for the next generation.

Because the true measure of justice is not merely whether a court has delivered a judgment. It is whether that judgment helps create a society in which women and girls are safer, institutions are more accountable, survivors are treated with dignity, and human rights are respected not only in the language of the law but in the everyday lives of the people the law exists to protect.

Legal Authorities and Reference Points

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), particularly sections 33, 34, 35, 37 and 42. (Edo State Judiciary)
Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015. (Nigeria Rights)
The domestication of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (VAPP) in various States. (Partners Nigeria)
Protection Against Domestic Violence Law of Lagos State 2007. (Lagos State Ministry of Justice)
Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency and Sex Offenders Register Law 2021. (Lagos State Ministry of Justice)
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Chapter 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228. (Nigeria Legal Information Institute)
Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) 1. (Nigeria Legal Information Institute)
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol). (United Nations Treaty Collection)
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.
Miss Omolola Olajide v. Nigeria Police Force & Ors., National Industrial Court of Nigeria. (nicnadr.gov.ng)

Editorial note: Because legislation and case law can be amended or supplemented, counsel should verify the current text of every statute, the current status of state-level legislation, and the latest reported judicial authorities before publication as a formal legal position or before relying on the article in litigation.