Tuesday, June 30, 2026
Prof. M T LADAN EXPLAINS WHAT ASSUMPTION OF CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE AFRICAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS ON AfCFTA MEANS TO NIGERIA.
Saturday, June 20, 2026
Prof MT Ladan Urges Lawyers to Drive Justice Reforms Through Hybrid Retributive-Restorative Model
Prof. Muhammed Tawifq Ladan PhD
Legal practitioners have been called upon to take deliberate steps as agents of change to strengthen justice delivery in Nigeria by championing reforms that combine retributive and restorative models of criminal justice.
A world renowned Scholar, Professor Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan, delivered the charge as Lead Speaker at the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association, (NBA), Gombe Branch Law Week held on Monday, 16th June 2026 at the ICC Auditorium in Gombe.
He said the week-long event, themed “Strengthening Justice Through Reforms: Lawyers as Agents of Change,” brought together judges, lawyers, law teachers, and civil society actors to examine practical ways of improving the justice system.
According to him, “real societal change requires both structural upgrades and a complete reset of professional ethics.” He warned that without both elements, reforms would remain cosmetic and unable to address delay, inequality, and public mistrust. Prof. Ladan further argued that a fair society relies on three separate but tightly linked concepts: “The Law, Justice, and the Rule of Law.”

He defined the law as “the official, written guidelines of a community” that must be public, easy to understand, and predictable so citizens can safely plan their lives and businesses. Justice, he said, means “complete fairness and equality” that treats every person the same regardless of money or power while working to repair harm done to victims. On the rule of law, Prof. Ladan stressed it “ensures that the law holds the ultimate power. No leader or politician is above the law” and requires independent judges free from political pressure.
The scholar told participants that the Gombe Law Week mapped these foundations into a threefold transformation plan. On institutional transformation, he said it “requires clear boundaries and guarding judicial independence against political overreach” and must push for strong cooperation between the Bar, Bench, and Legislature to keep institutional powers balanced and accountable.
For structural transformation, Prof. Ladan argued that “courts must modernize to remain fast and fair” through key changes like “swapping slow, manual paperwork for digital electronic filing systems.” He also maintained that criminal laws “must pivot toward rehabilitation and restorative justice instead of punishment or retributive justice.” He cited the NBA’s direct legal support visit to the Gombe Medium Correctional Centre as proof of this hands-on focus.
Prof. Ladan said attitudinal transformation demands that “legal professionals change their personal mindsets,” adding that lawyers and judges “must actively reject corruption, strictly manage conflicts of interest, and place professional integrity above financial gain.” He concluded that lawyers “cannot be passive onlookers while the justice system struggles” and must serve as the active frontline drivers of change in society.

He outlined three practical roles for the Bar. Defending human rights requires lawyers to lead the fight against societal failures, including using legal tools to tackle gender-based violence to protect human dignity and community productivity. Driving access to justice means championing vulnerable citizens through pro-bono aid and resolving hidden legal bottlenecks so the system works for everyone, not just the wealthy. Upholding professional integrity, he said, means “the Bar must first reform itself” because “by strictly enforcing ethical standards, lawyers regain the public trust required to lead national development.”
Prof. Ladan noted that Nigerian lawyers have utilized evolving case law to champion reforms across sectors. He cited Fawehinmi v. Akilu in the public sector for expanding the public’s right to challenge injustice and protect democratic integrity. In the commercial sector, he referenced CBN v. Registered Trustees of the NBA and Abu Arome v. CBN for defending the profession’s autonomy and lawyer-client confidentiality against anti-money laundering classifications.
On technology, the world renowned scholar said “tech-forward lawyers are leveraging legal-tech developments,” with advanced databases like the LawPavilion Electronic Law Report and automated legal assistants that have “accelerated case research, cleared clogged court dockets, and secured faster release dates for wrongfully detained inmates.”
He summarized the Law Week’s conclusions into three pillars. There is a trust crisis because “public trust in the justice system is low” and rebuilding it requires a visible shift from outdated mechanics to transparent, modern systems. The pillars are interconnected since “real institutional transformation is impossible without a simultaneous structural and attitudinal upgrade.” Finally, lawyers must occupy active frontiers as they “can no longer serve as neutral technical professionals” but must step into leadership as caretakers of democratic safety.
Prof. Ladan concluded that “the survival of Nigeria’s democracy hinges on the total independence of its judiciary” and that “true justice cannot be served in slow, manually operated courtrooms or by professionals who put personal financial gains over ethical accountability.” He recommended three actions: mandate integrated digital electronic filing systems across all state courts to reduce docket delays; task NBA branches with enforcing strict ethical discipline through swift sanctions for misconduct; and expand correctional legal aid by establishing permanent, branch-driven clinics to handle pro-bono bail and accelerate restorative rehabilitation.
Friday, June 19, 2026
STRENGTHENING JUSTICE THROUGH REFORMS WITH LAWYERS AS AGENTS OF CHANGE IN A HYBRID MODEL OF RETRIBUTIVE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. BY PROF. MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN, LEAD SPEAKER ON 16TH JUNE 2026.
Prof. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan PhD
The 2026 NBA Gombe Branch Law Week directly combined the concepts of law, justice, and the rule of law into a single actionable mandate: "Strengthening Justice Through Reforms: Lawyers as Agents of Change" ICC Auditorium in Gombe.
Held at the ICC Auditorium in Gombe, this legal gathering established that real societal change requires both structural upgrades and a complete reset of professional ethics ICC Auditorium in Gombe.
■Section 1: The Three Legal Foundations
A fair society relies on three separate but tightly linked concepts:
The Law (The Rules): Laws are the official, written guidelines of a community. They must be public, easy to understand, and predictable so citizens can safely plan their lives and businesses.
Justice (The Ultimate Goal): Justice means complete fairness and equality. It treats every person exactly the same way, regardless of money or power, while working to repair harm done to victims.
The Rule of Law (The System): This system ensures that the law holds the ultimate power. No leader or politician is above the law. It requires independent judges who make decisions free from outside political pressure.
●Section 2: The Threefold Transformation
The Gombe Law Week mapped these foundations into a practical plan for system-wide reform:
1. Institutional Transformation (Protecting the Rule of Law)
True rule of law requires clear boundaries. The conference emphasized guarding judicial independence against political overreach. It pushed for strong cooperation between the Bar, Bench, and Legislature to keep institutional powers balanced and accountable.
2. Structural Transformation (Delivering Real Justice)
Courts must modernize to remain fast and fair. Key changes include swapping slow, manual paperwork for digital electronic filing systems. Additionally, as argued by Prof.
Muhammad Tawfiq Ladan, criminal laws must pivot toward rehabilitation and restorative justice instead of punishment or retributive justice. This hands-on focus was highlighted by the NBA's direct legal support visit to the Gombe Medium Correctional Centre.
3. Attitudinal Transformation (Living the Law)
Legal professionals must change their personal mindsets. Lawyers and judges must actively reject corruption, strictly manage conflicts of interest, and place professional integrity above financial gain.
■Section 3: Lawyers as Agents of Change:-
A core conclusion of the event was that lawyers cannot be passive onlookers while the justice system struggles. They must serve as the active frontline drivers of change in society.
●Defending Human Rights: Lawyers must lead the fight against societal failures. This includes using legal tools to tackle issues like gender-based violence (GBV) to protect human dignity and community productivity.
Driving Access to Justice: Lawyers must champion the cause of vulnerable citizens. Providing pro-bono aid and resolving hidden legal bottlenecks ensures that the legal system works for everyone, not just the wealthy.
Upholding Professional Integrity: To successfully reform society, the Bar must first reform itself. By strictly enforcing ethical standards, lawyers regain the public trust required to lead national development.
■Section 4: Practical Trends in Case Law Across Sectors
In practice, Nigerian lawyers have actively utilized evolving case law to champion reforms and push boundaries across multiple sectors:
●The Public Sector & Human Rights:-
Nigerian lawyers historically rely on landmark cases like Fawehinmi v. Akilu to expand the public's right to challenge injustice. Through strategic public interest lawsuits, practitioners have consistently held public officials accountable, expanding the boundaries of civil liberties, fighting illegal detentions, and protecting democratic integrity.
■The Commercial Sector & Financial Regulation:-
Lawyers have aggressively defended the legal profession's autonomy and the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality. A primary example is the legal battle culminating in cases like CBN v. Registered Trustees of the NBA and Abu Arome v. CBN. Lawyers successfully argued that including legal practitioners as "Non-Designated Financial Institutions" under anti-money laundering laws violated sacred client privileges, reinforcing the rule that the legal profession can self-regulate ethically.
● Criminal Justice & Technology Sector
To combat systemic delays in the administration of justice, tech-forward Nigerian lawyers are leveraging legal-tech developments. By utilizing advanced electronic databases like the LawPavilion Electronic Law Report (LPELR) and automated legal assistants, lawyers have accelerated case research. This technological trend is helping practitioners quickly track criminal case developments, clear clogged court dockets, and secure faster release dates for wrongfully detained inmates.
●Section 5: Key Takeaways, Conclusions, and Recommendations
To ensure these principles translate from paper into actual legal practice, the 2026 Gombe Law Week finalized three closing strategic pillars:
■Key Takeaways
Trust Crisis: Public trust in the justice system is low. Rebuilding it requires an immediate, visible shift from outdated legal mechanics to transparent, modern systems.
Interconnected Pillars: Real institutional transformation is impossible without a simultaneous structural and attitudinal upgrade across the entire legal sector.
Active Frontiers: Legal practitioners can no longer serve as neutral technical professionals; they must step into leadership as direct caretakers of democratic safety.
●Conclusions
The 2026 conference concluded that the survival of Nigeria's democracy hinges on the total independence of its judiciary. True justice cannot be served in slow, manually operated courtrooms or by professionals who put personal financial gains over ethical accountability. Reforming the administrative flow of the courts and expanding technological assistance are urgent priorities to keep the law accessible to everyday citizens.
●Recommendations
Implement Digital Infrastructure: Mandate the deployment of integrated, digital electronic filing systems across all state courts to systematically reduce docket delays and processing timelines.
Enforce Strict Ethical Discipline: Task the NBA branches with imposing swift disciplinary measures for professional misconduct and unresolved conflicts of interest to safeguard public confidence.
Expand Correctional Legal Aid: Establish permanent, branch-driven legal clinics to routinely visit correctional facilities, handle pro-bono bail services, and accelerate the transition toward restorative rehabilitation.
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
THE LEGAL ARCHITECTURE OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL AND PROMOTE WELFARE: A JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14(2)(B) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SECURITY AND GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA. BY PROFESSOR MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN
Abstract
This paper examines Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) [1]. This section establishes that the security and welfare of the people is the primary purpose of government [1]. Section 6(6)(c) traditionally restricts the direct enforcement of socio-economic principles in Chapter II [1]. However, the Nigerian legal landscape has shifted [6]. Through strategic legislative items and progressive judicial decisions, courts are holding the state and corporations accountable [6, 7]. This paper analyzes how Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List, the VAPP Act 2015, and the NAPTIP Act 2015 act as statutory frameworks to protect vulnerable groups [1, 2, 3]. By looking across environmental safety, digital privacy, and the security of women, children, and displaced persons, this study demonstrates the evolution of public welfare enforcement in Nigeria [4, 5, 7].
I. Introduction
The constitutional foundation of Nigeria balances state power with the welfare of its citizens [1]. Section 14(2)(b) explicitly mandates that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government [1]. However, the real-world enforcement of this clause has long faced a barrier in Section 6(6)(c) [1]. This clause shields the Directive Principles of Chapter II from direct judicial scrutiny [1].
To understand the modern scope of public welfare, one must look at how the Constitution itself provides tools to make these rights active [1]. By reading Chapter II alongside the National Assembly's legislative powers and fundamental human rights, the Nigerian judiciary has built a working system for socio-economic justice [1, 6, 7]. This system is vital for vulnerable groups like women, children, and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) [2, 3, 4].
II. Objective
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the legal mechanisms used to enforce state responsibility in Nigeria [1]. It evaluates the power of Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List as a legislative bridge to enforce Chapter II objectives [1, 6]. Furthermore, it reviews key case law and specialized protection acts to show how public health, environmental safety, digital privacy, and vulnerable demographics are legally protected [2, 3, 4, 5, 7].
1. The Legislative Key: Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule
While Chapter II is generally non-justiciable on its own, the Constitution contains an internal mechanism to activate it [1]. Under Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List (Second Schedule), the National Assembly is given the exclusive power to establish and regulate authorities to "promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution" [1].
Judicial Activation: In the landmark case of Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002), the Supreme Court explained that when the National Assembly uses its power under Item 60(a) to pass a law, that law becomes fully enforceable [6]. Justice Niki Tobi famously noted that reading Item 60(a) alongside Chapter II ensures that the Directive Principles are no longer a "toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite" [1, 6].
Statutory Impact: Through this mechanism, pieces of legislation like anti-trafficking laws, gender-based violence acts, and environmental regulations become concrete legal mandates that citizens can enforce in court [2, 3, 4, 5].
2. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups: The VAPP Act 2015 and Gender Security
The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (VAPP) 2015 represents a major legislative milestone [2]. It protects women, children, and other vulnerable persons from systemic violence, harmful traditional practices, and domestic abuse [2]. It directly operationalizes the social justice mandate of Section 17 of the Constitution [1, 2].
Broad Judicial Interpretation: In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nyong (2021), the court emphasized that the VAPP Act expands the definition of violence [2]. It includes emotional, verbal, and economic abuse [2]. The court ruled that protecting women from domestic slavery and spousal abandonment is a fundamental duty of the state under the welfare umbrella of Section 14(2)(b) [1, 2].
Striking Down Harmful Customs: In Anya v. State (2023), the court utilized the VAPP Act to penalize individuals involved in harmful widowhood practices [2]. The judge stated that cultural traditions must give way to the statutory protections of the VAPP Act and the constitutional Right to Dignity of the Human Person (Section 34) [1, 2].
3. Combatting Human Trafficking: The NAPTIP Act 2015 and Modern Slavery
Human trafficking targets the most vulnerable members of society [3]. This includes impoverished children, women, and displaced individuals [3, 4]. The Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act 2015 (NAPTIP Act) empowers the state to aggressively prosecute traffickers and rescue victims [3].
Rejecting Cultural Defenses: In NAPTIP v. Okoyomon (2022), the Supreme Court confirmed strict custodial sentences for human traffickers [3]. The apex court ruled that trafficking is a modern form of slavery [3]. It directly assaults the human dignity guaranteed under Section 34 of the Constitution [1, 3]. The court held that no cultural arrangements or economic hardships could justify turning a human being into a commercial commodity [3].
Protecting Displaced Populations (IDPs): In State v. Kingsley (2024), the court dealt with a criminal syndicate targeting Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in a humanitarian camp [3]. The judge ruled that the state has an elevated duty of care to secure IDP camps [1, 3]. Failing to safeguard displaced people from traffickers is a direct failure of the government's primary purpose under Section 14(2)(b) [1, 3].
4. Child Rights, Welfare, and Protection Cases
The protection of children from exploitation is a primary social duty under Section 17(3) of the Constitution [1]. This is further codified through the Child Rights Act (CRA) 2003 [4].
The Child's Right to Safe Development: In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Windapo (2020), the court ruled that the state must intervene when a child's environment is abusive or unsafe [4]. The judiciary read the protections of the Child Rights Act directly alongside the fundamental right to life, emphasizing that survival requires safe development [1, 4].
Prohibiting Child Labor: In NAPTIP v. Ejiofor (2021), the court penalized an employer for exploiting young children for street begging and domestic labor [3, 4]. The court declared that the government must use its statutory power to remove children from hazardous work environments and ensure their access to basic education [1, 4].
5. Environmental Security: COPW v. NNPC and the Right to a Clean Environment
Environmental degradation directly threatens the livelihood and health of vulnerable rural communities [5, 7]. The Supreme Court permanently altered environmental litigation through its decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 [7].
The Shift in Locus Standi: For decades, public-spirited individuals and NGOs could not sue polluters unless they proved they had suffered direct, personal financial or physical damage [7]. In COPW v. NNPC, the Supreme Court removed this restriction [7]. It ruled that public-spirited NGOs have the legal standing (locus standi) to bring lawsuits against corporate polluters to protect public natural water sources [7].
The Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment: The Supreme Court made key constitutional declarations [7]. It established that Section 20 is justiciable when connected to legislative powers [1, 7]. It also ruled that the Right to Life (Section 33) implicitly includes the right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment [1, 7].
This built upon the earlier High Court decision in Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) & NNPC (2005) AHRLR 151, solidifying the rule that companies and state entities cannot destroy local ecosystems without facing human rights lawsuits [5].
6. Data Security, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Jurisprudence
As personal lives move online, the state's duty to provide security under Section 14(2)(b) applies directly to digital spaces [1]. This is governed by Section 37 (Right to Privacy), the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023, and the Cybercrimes Act 2015.
Data Liability: In Digital Rights Advocates v. National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) (2024), the Federal High Court ruled that a failure by state or private databases to protect citizens' biometric information is a direct breach of privacy rights under Section 37 [1]. The court noted that data security is a core component of modern personal safety [1].
National Security Boundaries: In Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320, the Supreme Court noted that individual rights can be limited during extreme national security crises. However, recent cyber cases like Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Okeke (2025) clarify that law enforcement tracking cyber threats must still secure proper judicial warrants, balancing public safety with citizen privacy [1].
7. Consumer Protection, Employment, and Monetary Welfare
Consumer Protection: In Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited & Anor v. Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya (2023), the Court of Appeal penalized a manufacturer for distributing contaminated beverages. It stated that the judicial system must protect consumer health from reckless commercial manufacturing [1].
Employment Safety: In Sahara Energy Resource Ltd v. Olawale Olajide Afolabi (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525), the National Industrial Court (NIC) used international labor standards to rule that employers can no longer terminate employment without giving a valid, justiciable reason. This links job security to economic welfare [1].
The Currency Crisis and Public Trust: In Attorney General of Kaduna State & Ors v. Attorney General of the Federation (2023), the Supreme Court halted a rapid currency demonetization policy. It ruled that economic changes that spark financial paralysis and starvation run counter to the state's primary purpose under Section 14(2)(b) [1]. Furthermore, in June 2026, the Federal High Court in Lagos invalidated the National Assembly’s ₦110 billion luxury vehicle procurement scheme. It held that excessive spending during economic hardship violates the public trust [1].
IV. Conclusion
The principle that the security and welfare of the people is the primary purpose of government is the foundational core of Nigerian law [1]. While Section 6(6)(c) remains a structural challenge, the combined effect of Item 60(a) and specific statutory frameworks like the VAPP Act 2015 and the NAPTIP Act 2015 has changed how laws are applied [1, 2, 3, 6]. By linking environmental safety, the protection of vulnerable groups, and digital privacy to fundamental human rights, the Nigerian legal system ensures that public welfare can be fought for and won in court [1, 2, 3, 7].
V. Recommendations
Domestication and Harmonization: State governments that have not fully domesticated the VAPP Act and the Child Rights Act should do so immediately [2, 4]. This ensures uniform protection for vulnerable demographics across Nigeria.
Enhanced Funding for Protective Agencies: The federal government must provide robust financial resources and security backing to NAPTIP and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) [3]. This will effectively patrol and secure vulnerable zones like IDP camps.
Expand Public Interest Legal Aid: State governments and bar associations should provide financial backing to public interest lawyers trying to enforce welfare protections for marginalized citizens [1].
Adherence to Budgetary Accountability: The judiciary must maintain its oversight role [1]. It should strike down wasteful executive and legislative procurements to prioritize public healthcare, security infrastructure, and grassroots development [1].
VI. References
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015.
Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015 (NAPTIP Act).
Child Rights Act, 2003.
Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & NNPC (2005) AHRLR 151.
Attorney General of Ondo State v. Attorney General of the Federation (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222.
Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518.
Thursday, June 4, 2026
DISTINGUISHED LAW PROFESSOR, MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN EXPLAINS THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT URGENTLY ADDRESSING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INSECURITY FACING NIGERIANS ON THE 2027 ELECTION SECURITY AND COLLECTIVE SURVIVAL AS A NATION.
NILDS AfCFTA Policy Programme records key milestones
The Division of AfCFTA Law and Policy Programme (DALP), Office of the Director-General, National Institute for Legislative and Democratic ...
-
Download PDF copy at: - https://tinyurl.com/4bfk9mb4 TOPIC: - HIGHLIGHTS OF KEY GENERAL AND SPECIFIC SECTORAL ...
-
Executive Summary This document provides a single, comprehensive legal architecture governing the deployment, commercialisation, and regulat...
-
Download PDF copy at: - https://tinyurl.com/mr2bmd7w HIGHLIGHTS OF KEY GENERAL AND SPECIFIC SECTORAL RE...


