Definition of Fundamental Rights
Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) donates fundamental rights to all Nigerian citizens – the right to life, liberty, dignity, fair hearing, freedom of movement, expression, privacy, thought, religion, association, acquisition of immovable property anywhere in the country, freedom from torture, inhuman treatment and discrimination etc. In Hassan v EFCC & Ors (2024) LPELR-62999 (SC) per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “Fundamental rights have been defined as “the rights one holds by virtue; solely of being a human person, that is to say, right naturally inhering in the human being….fundamental rights occupy kingly positions, in the pyramid of human rights”.
Rescue of Oriire Abductees
In the last few days, Nigerians have witnessed several incidents that have brought issues concerning these fundamental rights to the fore. Most important is the rescue of the Oriire, Oyo State abductees. Kudos to the Tinubu administration and its security agencies, for rescuing the Pupils and Teachers kidnapped in May 2026, in Oriire, Oyo State (the Abductees), and restoring their right to liberty. In Hassan v EFCC & Ors (Supra) the Supreme Court held that: “Personal liberty is precious and priceless to the citizenry, such that its preservation must always be paramount in every society”.
The rescue is obviously bitter-sweet, because of the gruesome murder of one of the Teachers, Mr Michael Oyedokun, who was horribly deprived of his right to life at the beginning of the ordeal. May his soul rest in peace. Amen. It is also bitter-sweet, because the whereabouts/fate of those. who were kidnapped on the same day in Mussa/Askira, and in June, in Lassa, both in Borno State, the rest of the Chibok girls, Leah Sharibu, the lone Dapchi girl, and others who still remain in captivity and are yet to be rescued, remain unknown. Their fundamental rights, are yet be be restored. See Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution on the security and welfare of the people, being the primary purpose of government.
It was reported in the news that, so far, 8 of the kidnappers were arrested during the rescue operation. Aside from the fact that the fundamental rights of the abductees were breached such as the right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment contrary to Sections 35(1), 41(1) & 34(1)(a) of the Constitution, multiple offences appear to have been committed by the kidnappers against several laws. In Okam v Uzoma & Anor (2023) LPELR-61280 (CA) per Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyawu, JCA, the Court of Appeal held that: “The settled position of the law in cases of allegation of violation of fundamental rights….the specific facts of the alleged detention and the duration must be proved in substantial details…. It is not a matter of speculation….. Indeed, the Applicant has the burden to prove by cogent, convincing and credible evidence, the facts as alleged by him, as construing the breach or infringement of the fundamental right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment or torture…and wide allegations of such breach and infringement, will not suffice…..”. It is obvious that the Abductees wouldn’t have to do too much to discharge their burden of proof, as the whole of Nigeria was somewhat privy to their ordeal of unlawful detention for 56 days. They would definitely be entitled to damages, for the violation of their rights.
Many Nigerians saw the gruesome video of Mr Oyedokun, who was killed/beheaded in the kidnappers’ captivity. It is undeniable that the offences of kidnapping, murder and assault, are involved in the Oriire incident. The Oyo State Kidnapping (Prohibition) Law 2016 (OKL) provides for the death penalty, if an abductee dies in captivity. This provision would be applicable, in this situation. However, where a kidnap victim is safely rescued, the OKL prescribes life imprisonment for the kidnappers.
Thanks be to God, that all 39 children came back home safely. But, when it comes to children, the Child’s Rights Act 2003 (CRA) or whichever version of it that has been domesticated where the incident occurred, is also relevant; in this case it is the Oyo State Child’s Rights Law 2006 (OCRL). Many of the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution are regurgitated in the OCRL, particularly freedom of movement (Section 11), dignity (Section 13), parental care and protection (Section 16). Section 30(1) of the OCRL prohibits inter alia, the removal of a child from the parent or guardian against the will of such parent or guardian, and prescribes a punishment of 15-20 years imprisonment depending on the circumstances for doing same. Had the Abductees been kept in any building or house, the OKL provides that such premises should be seized by the government and demolished. In Ewugba v State (2017) LPELR-43833(SC) per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, the Supreme Court held that: “Kidnapping contrary to Section 364(2) of Criminal Code. When a person is detained unlawfully, the offence of kidnapping is established”. Certainly, it is undeniable that the Abductees were kidnapped. See Abanobi v State (2025) LPELR-81735 (AC) per Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC on the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping.
Furthermore, the heinous offence of terrorism also forms part of the offences committed by the Oriire kidnappers, since they are alleged to belong to the Splinter from Boko Haram, Ansaru Jihadist Terrorist Al-Qaeda-linked Group – see Section 2 (3)(a)-(g) particularly g(i) & (ii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA) which provides for acts that result in grievous bodily harm or death of a victim, or kidnap of a person. Membership of a terrorist group attracts 20 years to life imprisonment upon conviction – see Section 25(1) of the TPPA. See Abdulmumini v FRN (2017) LPELR-43726(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN) where the Supreme Court held thus: “The crucial aspect of the offence of terrorism is the creation of intense fear and anxiety, both physical and psychological in the minds of members of the public, which has the effect of coercing, forcing, intimidating them to do or abstain from doing any act or to adopt or abandon a particular view, policy or position to act according to certain principles”. The constant kidnapping of pupils and students has put fear into Nigerians, so much so that parents are keeping their children home from school. Whether it’s the Boko Haram terrorist group and their warped ideology that Western education is forbidden, or that schools are seen as a soft target where people can easily be kidnapped for ransom, Nigeria is reported to have the highest number of out-of-school children globally. Soon, Teachers will also become reluctant to go to school, seeing as they are also being targeted.
Give the Tinubu Administration its Flowers Here
Be that as it may, we must give those who deserve them, their flowers, no matter how small some believe their effort may be. Whether people like the Tinubu administration or not, this is the most effort to fight insecurity, that Nigerians have seen in the last 11 years or so.
During the Buhari administration, we saw the security situation deteriorate, and so-called terrorist negotiators, Sheik Ahmed Gumi and Tukur Mamu, who was subsequently arrested on allegations of terrorist financing, rise to fame, all to no avail. Today, Sheik Gumi seems to now be regarded by many, with suspicion.
The Buhari administration saw no reason to tweak the security architecture in the face of its failure to secure the country, nor did they seek the much needed external assistance Nigeria required; yet, the two main reasons Nigerians voted President Buhari into office were his stand against corruption, and his experience as an Army General, which Nigerians believed would equip him to fight insecurity effectively. Groups like the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) and Northern Elders Forum (NEF), even though they expressed their concern and criticised President Buhari, were more restrained in their approach, sometimes muted for obvious reasons, even though insecurity which pre-dated the Buhari administration, appeared to broaden during his time. Their voices of criticism were louder under the Presidencies of Goodluck Jonathan and now, Bola Tinubu, despite the latter’s efforts to rejig the security architecture to make it more effective, appointing a Homeland Security Adviser for the first time in Nigeria’s history; introducing Forest Guards; fast-tracking the process of making State Police a reality and seeking foreign assistance. In the area of security, President Tinubu seems to be making an effort to do things differently, in order to yield better results.
Destructive Criticism
It is therefore, rather unfortunate that Nigeria operates a system in which criticism is destructive, rather than constructive. Sadly, most politicians are guilty of engaging in this counter-productive behaviour. Even when the incumbent may be taking the right steps, the opposition condemns him/her instead of encouraging them. When President Goodluck Jonathan was set to remove the corrupt fuel subsidy regime in 2012 (see Section 15(5) of the Constitution), there was a protest from Nigerians and the then opposition, including President Tinubu. If President Jonathan had been left to take that step when the Nigerian economy was buoyant and in a better position to absorb the shock, perhaps, the last three years wouldn’t have been so harsh for Nigerians. Meanwhile, as soon as President Tinubu was sworn in, he removed the same fuel subsidy! We see many leaders say one thing as opposition, and do the opposite as incumbent!
I recall an interview in which Malam Nasiru El Rufai was accused of doing a complete u-turn, on his stand on the payment of ransom to kidnappers. While he was a member of the opposition, he had said that Government must must do everything possible to recover abductees. When he became Governor, he said that ransoms must never be paid to kidnappers. When asked by the interviewer about his change of heart, Malam El Rufai stated that the job of the opposition was to discredit the incumbent, that even when the incumbent did something good, they must be condemned! This is freedom of expression; but, it is toxic, and not always beneficial for growth and development. Criticising for criticism’s sake!
Mr Peter Obi, the NDC Presidential Candidate, welcomed the rescue of the Oriire abductees, and asked the authorities to do more in terms of security of children in schools. This is balanced. Giving credit where it is due, while rightfully demanding for higher standards.
In some circumstances, the same criticism for criticism’s sake strategy they used in the past when they were in the opposition, is being used against President Tinubu and his administration today. Certainly, President Tinubu isn’t doing everything right, but even as he is taking the necessary steps to try to make Nigeria more secure, steps which have remained in the realm of debate for decades, we continue to hear the most senseless and absurd criticisms, such as, there should be more discussion about State Police – after almost 30 years of endless debate, with no tangible results; they should declare a state of emergency on security – what does that even mean? State Police will be abused by the Governors, like it was in the First Republic – even after we have observed that the State Police Executive Bill 2026 has some provisions, including that of the process of appointment of the State Police Commissioner, attempting to address this problem – should we not drive cars, because they can have accidents?
The International School, Ibadan Hijab Saga
I don’t know whether it was the “Great Dissenter”, US Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, that first coined it, or the saying existed before him, that is, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins”. A different version of this saying is: “Your freedom ends where mine begins”. The sum and substance of this saying is that, fundamental rights are not always absolute; they can be limited, sometimes by the rights of others. See Section 45 of the Constitution.
Another recent incident that bears on fundamental rights, specifically freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is the Court of Appeal 2-1 judgement delivered on July 3, 2026, overturning the Oyo State High Court’s decision allowing the wearing of hijab to a private secondary school, International School, Ibadan (ISI).
The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, distinguished this case which pertains to a private school, from the Supreme Court’s split decision in SC/910/2016 Lagos State Government & Ors v Asiyat AbdulKareem & Ors decided on June 17, 2022, where the majority decision upheld the right of Muslim sisters to adorn the hijab to public schools, holding that banning it violates their right to religion, dignity and freedom from discrimination – see Sections 38(1), 34(1) & 42(1)(a) of the Constitution.
A hijab is “a veil traditionally worn by some Muslim women….in public generally, which usually covers the head and chest” (the sides of the face, the ears). Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution provides thus: “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as a State Religion”. This makes Nigeria a secular nation. However, when Section 10 is read with Section 38, the result is the right of all Nigerians, to the voluntary practice, worship and propagation of their various religions. The question is, can that right be extended to breaking laid down rules of a private school that has a no-hijab policy that Parents must sign up to? I think not. Where does it end? The Ifa faithful also wants to add coral beads and oja to their uniform, when jewellery isn’t allowed in school, after all, they also enjoy freedom of religion.
The truth is that, if this matter is appealed to the Supreme Court, I expect the Apex Court to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal. Just as I have a right to say I don’t want anyone who wears pink or has dreadlocks to enter my house, so also ISI, as a private institution has a right to a no-hijab policy – we have freedom of thought and association – see Section 40 of the Constitution. ISI isn’t the only private school in Ibadan, and Muslim sisters who insist on wearing hijab are free to attend any other school. I’m not sure that their right to freedom of religion, can be imposed on ISI.
Conclusion
The rescue of the Abductees offers a glimmer of hope and vindication for the primacy of fundamental rights to life and liberty. Yet, it underscores the urgent imperative for sustained action against insecurity. As Nigeria grapples with religious freedoms in private spheres — as affirmed in the ISI hijab judgement, we must remember that rights are mutual and limited: one person’s liberty ends where another’s begins. True progress demands constructive criticism. The Tinubu administration’s nascent reforms deserve support, where merited.