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.
No comments:
Post a Comment