FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY IN NIGERIA: AN ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER II OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

One of the most significant innovations in Nigeria’s constitutional development is the inclusion of Chapter II on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. This chapter, spanning sections 13 to 24 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), represents a bold attempt at constitutionalizing socio-economic rights and setting out the guiding principles for governance in Nigeria.¹

The chapter contains provisions on political, economic, social, educational, environmental, cultural objectives. Understanding these provisions requires familiarity with the broader sources of constitutional law in Nigeria, national ethics, and the duties of citizens. It essentially defines the relationship between the government and the people, establishes the philosophical foundation of the Nigerian state, and sets out the standards by which governmental performance should be measured.²

However, the inclusion of these provisions has generated considerable controversy, primarily due to section 6(6)(c) of the same Constitution which renders the entire Chapter II non-justiciable—meaning that courts cannot adjudicate on matters arising from its provisions.³ This has led many scholars to question the practical value and enforceability of these constitutional provisions.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES

What Does “Fundamental” Mean?

The word ‘fundamental’ connotes hierarchy of order or importance. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, fundamental means ‘serious and very important; affecting the most central and important part of something—basic, central, forming the necessary basis of something’.⁴ Black’s Law Dictionary defines fundamental law as ‘the law which determines the constitution of Government in a Nation or State and prescribes or regulates the manner of its exercise’.⁵

Therefore, when the Constitution describes Chapter II as containing ‘Fundamental Objectives’, it is declaring these provisions as important, necessary, and central to the life and governance of Nigeria. The use of this terminology is deliberate and significant, mirroring Chapter IV which deals with ‘Fundamental Rights’.⁶

The Distinction Between Objectives and Directive Principles

According to the Constitution Drafting Committee that drafted the 1979 Constitution (whose provisions were adopted in the 1999 Constitution), fundamental objectives refer to ‘the ultimate objectives of the nation’, whilst directive principles of state policy indicate ‘the path which leads to those objectives’.⁷ In essence:

• Fundamental Objectives = The destination (what Nigeria wants to achieve)
• Directive Principles = The roadmap (how Nigeria should get there)

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Section 13: The Mandatory Provision

Section 13 of the Constitution provides that:

It shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this chapter of this Constitution.⁸

This provision is crucial because it makes compliance with Chapter II a constitutional duty. The use of the word ‘shall’ is particularly significant. In legal interpretation, ‘shall’ is generally understood as mandatory rather than discretionary.⁹ As stated in Black’s Law Dictionary:

‘Shall’ as used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory… It has a peremptory meaning and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion.¹⁰

Furthermore, the section uses both ‘duty’ and ‘responsibility’—two correlative terms that emphasize the importance of compliance. A duty implies an obligation, whether moral or legal, which one ought to or is bound to perform. Responsibility means the state of being accountable or liable to answer.¹¹ The drafters deliberately used both words to emphasize that government officials must not only comply with Chapter II but must also be accountable for their compliance or non-compliance.

Section 6(6)(c): The Non-Justiciability Clause

Despite the mandatory language of section 13, section 6(6)(c) provides that:

The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall not, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution.¹²

This provision essentially bars the courts from investigating whether the government has complied with the provisions of Chapter II. It means that even though section 13 imposes a duty on government organs to comply with Chapter II, citizens cannot approach the courts to enforce this duty directly.¹³

This creates an apparent paradox: the Constitution declares these objectives as fundamental and makes compliance mandatory, yet prevents judicial enforcement. This tension has led to extensive academic debate about the true value and enforceability of Chapter II.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER II PROVISIONS

Section 14: Government and the People

Section 14 establishes the foundational principles upon which the Nigerian state is built:

Democracy and Social Justice: The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.¹⁴ This means:

• Nigeria must be governed democratically through elected representatives
• Military rule, coups, and unconstitutional takeovers are prohibited
• The rule of law must prevail
• The government must be fair to all individuals, groups, and communities

Popular Sovereignty: Section 14(2)(a) declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through the Constitution derives all its powers and authority.¹⁵ This means the government’s legitimacy comes from the people, not from force or divine right.

Primary Purpose of Government: Section 14(2)(b) states that ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government’.¹⁶ This is perhaps one of the most important provisions in the entire Constitution. It fundamentally redefines the role of government in Nigeria, moving beyond the traditional limited role of maintaining law and order to encompassing the positive obligation to ensure citizen welfare.

This provision has profound implications. When government fails to address widespread insecurity—whether through kidnapping, banditry, or terrorism—citizens can legitimately claim that government has failed its primary constitutional purpose. Similarly, when policies are implemented that significantly worsen the welfare of citizens (such as sudden removal of fuel subsidies without corresponding welfare measures, or failure to pay workers’ salaries), these actions contradict the explicit primary purpose of government as stated in the Constitution. While citizens cannot directly sue based on section 14(2)(b) alone due to non-justiciability, this provision serves as a constitutional benchmark for evaluating governmental performance and provides moral and political grounds for holding leaders accountable through electoral processes and public discourse.

Popular Participation: Section 14(2)(c) provides that participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the Constitution.¹⁷ This obligates the state to create opportunities for citizens to participate in governance.

Federal Character: Section 14(3) and (4) introduce the federal character principle, requiring that government composition and conduct reflect Nigeria’s diversity and prevent domination by persons from particular states or ethnic groups.¹⁸ This principle recognizes Nigeria’s multi-ethnic reality and seeks to promote national unity by ensuring that no region or ethnic group feels marginalized. In practice, this means that federal appointments, admissions into federal institutions, and distribution of government resources should reflect the geographical spread of the country. For instance, federal ministerial appointments must include at least one minister from each of Nigeria’s 36 states. The federal character principle extends to employment in federal civil service, admission into federal universities and the military, and even composition of government boards and parastatals. While this provision is in Chapter II and technically non-justiciable, the Federal Character Commission was established by the Constitution to monitor and enforce compliance, giving it practical effect beyond mere aspiration.

Section 15: Political Objectives

Section 15 establishes Nigeria’s motto as ‘Unity and Faith, Peace and Progress’ and sets out measures to achieve national integration:¹⁹

1. Prohibition of Discrimination: Discrimination on grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association is prohibited.
2. Free Mobility: The state must provide adequate facilities for and encourage free mobility of people, goods, and services throughout the Federation.
3. Residence Rights: Full residence rights for every citizen in all parts of the Federation must be secured.
4. Encouragement of Inter-Marriage: The state should encourage inter-marriage among persons from different places of origin, religions, ethnic groups, or linguistic associations.
5. Cross-Cutting Associations: The state should promote the formation of associations that cut across ethnic, linguistic, religious or other sectional barriers.
6. Abolition of Corruption: Section 15(5) provides that ‘the State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power’.²⁰ This provision has been used by the Supreme Court to validate anti-corruption legislation. In Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation, the Court held that the National Assembly had the legislative competence to enact anti-corruption laws based on this provision.²¹ This judicial endorsement led to the establishment of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and strengthened the legal foundation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). However, despite these institutional frameworks and the clear constitutional mandate, corruption remains one of Nigeria’s most intractable problems. Billions of naira meant for schools, hospitals, and infrastructure are regularly misappropriated. The gap between the constitutional promise to ‘abolish all corrupt practices’ and the reality of endemic corruption illustrates the limitation of having such provisions in a non-justiciable chapter. While anti-corruption agencies can prosecute individuals, citizens cannot directly invoke section 15(5) to challenge systemic corruption or demand comprehensive anti-corruption reforms through the courts.

Section 16: Economic Objectives

Section 16 outlines Nigeria’s economic philosophy, establishing what is essentially a mixed economy:²²

1. Maximum Welfare: The state shall control the national economy to secure maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity.
2. Major Sectors: The state shall manage and operate the major sectors of the economy (such as oil and gas, telecommunications, electricity, etc.).
3. Prevention of Concentration of Wealth: Section 16(2)(c) provides that the economic system shall not permit the concentration of wealth or means of production in the hands of few individuals or groups.²³
4. Right to Economic Activity: Section 16(2)(d) guarantees every citizen’s right to engage in any economic activities outside the major sectors reserved for the state.
5. Economic Oversight Body: A body should be established by the National Assembly to review ownership and control of business enterprises and advise the President accordingly.

Section 17: Social Objectives

Section 17 establishes that Nigeria’s social order is founded on ideals of freedom, equality and justice. It requires the state to direct its policy towards ensuring:²⁴

1. Equality of Rights: All citizens shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law.
2. Human Dignity: The sanctity of the human person shall be recognized and human dignity maintained.
3. Humane Government Actions: Governmental actions shall be humane.
4. Prevention of Exploitation: Exploitation of human or natural resources in any form shall be prevented.
5. Judicial Independence: The independence, impartiality and integrity of courts of law, and easy accessibility thereto shall be secured and maintained.

Additionally, the state must ensure:²⁵

• Adequate means of livelihood for all citizens without discrimination
• Just and humane conditions of work with adequate facilities for leisure
• Health, safety and welfare of workers
• Adequate medical and health facilities for all
• Equal pay for equal work without discrimination
• Protection of children, young persons and the aged against exploitation
• Public assistance in deserving cases
• Encouragement of family life

Section 18: Educational Objectives

Section 18 mandates the state to direct its policy towards ensuring equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels. The state shall:²⁶

1. Promote science and technology
2. Strive to eradicate illiteracy
3. Provide, as and when practicable:
   • Free, compulsory and universal primary education
   • Free secondary education
   • Free university education
   • Free adult literacy programmes

The qualification ‘as and when practicable’ recognizes that full implementation depends on available resources and practical considerations.²⁷ This has been the subject of considerable debate. While the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act has made primary education nominally free and compulsory across Nigeria, the reality often falls short—many public schools lack basic infrastructure, teachers go unpaid for months, and parents still bear significant costs for uniforms, textbooks, and other ‘levies’. At the tertiary level, public universities charge tuition fees despite the constitutional directive for free university education, with government arguing it is not yet ‘practicable’ due to resource constraints. This tension between constitutional aspiration and fiscal reality illustrates the practical challenges of implementing Chapter II provisions. The recurring strikes by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) over funding and working conditions further highlight the gap between the constitutional promise of quality education and actual implementation. Citizens cannot sue to compel government to provide free university education, but these constitutional provisions provide a standard against which government performance can be measured and criticized.

Section 19: Foreign Policy Objectives

Nigeria’s foreign policy is guided by the following objectives:²⁸

1. Promotion and protection of national interest
2. Promotion of African integration and support for African unity
3. Promotion of international cooperation for consolidation of universal peace
4. Promotion of a just world economic order
5. Promotion of respect for international law and treaty obligations
6. Seeking settlement of international disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication
7. Promotion of a new international economic order

Section 20: Environmental Objectives

The state is obligated to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air, land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.²⁹ This provision has gained increasing importance in light of environmental degradation, oil spillages in the Niger Delta, and climate change concerns.

In Attorney General of Lagos State v Attorney General of Federation, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act based on this provision, even though environmental matters are generally on the Concurrent Legislative List.³⁰

Section 21: Cultural Objectives

The state must:³¹

1. Protect, preserve and promote Nigerian cultures which enhance human dignity and are consistent with the fundamental objectives
2. Encourage development of technological and scientific studies that enhance cultural values

Section 22: Obligations of the Mass Media

Section 22 provides that:

The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.³²

This provision constitutionally recognizes the traditional watchdog role of the media and explicitly links press freedom to governmental accountability. It is one of the few provisions that operationalizes Chapter II enforcement through non-judicial means. The media serves as the ‘court of public opinion’ where government’s compliance with Chapter II can be interrogated daily. When investigative journalists expose corruption, they are enforcing section 15(5) which mandates abolition of corrupt practices. When media reports on poverty, unemployment, or poor healthcare, they are highlighting government’s failure to meet its primary purpose under section 14(2)(b). When newspapers and television stations host debates on education funding, they are holding government accountable to section 18. The constitutional protection in section 22 means media houses can invoke this provision when defending against government attempts to suppress reporting on socio-economic failures. However, this freedom is not absolute—media must still comply with defamation laws, national security considerations, and professional ethics. The provision makes clear that press freedom exists not merely for its own sake, but instrumentally to ensure government accountability on Chapter II objectives. This transforms the media from mere observers to constitutional actors with explicit duties to monitor and report on government’s socio-economic performance.

Section 23: National Ethics

The national ethics shall be:³³

• Discipline
• Integrity
• Dignity of labour
• Social justice
• Religious tolerance
• Self-reliance
• Patriotism

Section 24: Duties of Citizens

The Constitution imposes the following duties on Nigerian citizens:³⁴

1. Abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, institutions, the National Flag, the National Anthem, the National Pledge, and legitimate authorities
2. Help enhance the power, prestige and good name of Nigeria
3. Defend Nigeria and render national service when required (e.g., NYSC)
4. Respect the dignity of other citizens and the rights and legitimate interests of others
5. Make positive contributions to the advancement of the community where one resides
6. Render assistance to lawful agencies in maintaining law and order
7. Declare income honestly and pay tax promptly

These duties are enforceable in various ways even though Chapter II is non-justiciable. The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), for instance, is a direct implementation of the duty to render national service. Every Nigerian graduate must complete one year of service to the nation, deployed to states other than their state of origin to promote national integration. Refusal to participate in NYSC attracts penalties including ineligibility for federal employment. Similarly, the duty to pay tax is enforced through various tax laws including the Personal Income Tax Act, Companies Income Tax Act, and Value Added Tax Act. Tax evasion is a criminal offense punishable by law. The duty to assist law enforcement agencies means citizens can be compelled to testify in court or provide information about crimes. Interestingly, while government’s duties under Chapter II are largely non-justiciable, citizens’ duties have been given legal teeth through specific legislation, creating an imbalance that critics argue favours the state over citizens. Citizens must pay taxes and render service, but cannot sue when government fails to provide the welfare and services promised in return.

THE PARADOX OF NON-JUSTICIABILITY

Understanding Non-Justiciability

Non-justiciability means that courts lack jurisdiction to entertain cases based solely on violations of Chapter II provisions. As held in Archbishop Olubunmi Okogie v Attorney General of Lagos State:

While section 13 of the Constitution makes it a duty and responsibility of the judiciary among other organs of government to conform to and apply the provisions of Chapter II, section 6(6)(c) of the same Constitution makes it clear that no court has jurisdiction to pronounce any decision as to whether any organ of government has acted or is acting in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.³⁵

This creates a situation where citizens cannot directly sue the government in court for failing to provide free education, adequate healthcare, or employment opportunities, even though the Constitution mandates these. For instance, a citizen cannot file a lawsuit demanding that government implement free university education under section 18, or claiming that the inadequate healthcare system violates section 17(3)(d). Parents whose children lack access to quality education cannot directly invoke Chapter II to compel government action. Workers earning below subsistence wages cannot sue based solely on section 17(3)(a) which mandates adequate means of livelihood. Communities suffering environmental degradation cannot directly enforce section 20’s environmental protection mandate. This is the practical reality of non-justiciability—it removes judicial remedies that would otherwise be available for constitutional violations. For comprehensive research on Nigerian constitutional case law, legal scholars and practitioners can access databases such as LawPavilion.

The Implications of Non-Justiciability

The non-justiciability of Chapter II has several significant implications that affect every Nigerian citizen:

1. Limited Judicial Enforcement: Citizens cannot obtain direct judicial remedies for violations of their socio-economic rights as set out in Chapter II.³⁶ This means no Nigerian can walk into court and sue the government for failing to provide free education, adequate healthcare, employment opportunities, or decent living wages based solely on Chapter II provisions. The courthouse doors are shut to such claims.
2. Reduced Accountability: Without the possibility of judicial challenge, the executive and legislature face reduced pressure to implement these provisions.³⁷ Politicians can make campaign promises about education, healthcare, and welfare, then fail to deliver once in office, knowing citizens have no legal recourse. This creates a culture of impunity where constitutional obligations are treated as mere suggestions rather than binding duties.
3. Resource Allocation Challenges: The lack of justiciability means courts cannot compel governments to prioritize certain expenditures, even when constitutional provisions mandate them. Government can allocate minimal budgets to education and healthcare while spending lavishly on less critical items, and no court can declare such allocation patterns unconstitutional based on Chapter II alone. In practice, this means government luxury spending on official vehicles, foreign trips, and oversized cabinet often takes precedence over constitutionally mandated welfare spending.
4. Impediment to Development: As one scholar notes, the continuation of non-justiciability may result in lack of development and non-accountability by government without any hope of successful judicial challenge.³⁸ When a nation’s organic law promises socio-economic rights but provides no mechanism for enforcement, it creates a legitimacy deficit. Citizens become cynical about constitutional promises, undermining respect for law and democratic institutions. The observable consequences include persistent poverty despite constitutional promises of adequate livelihood, poor healthcare despite constitutional guarantees, deteriorating education despite promises of free quality education, and endemic corruption despite constitutional mandates to abolish it.

Why Were They Made Non-Justiciable?

Several reasons have been advanced for making Chapter II non-justiciable:

1. Resource Constraints: Implementation of socio-economic rights requires significant financial resources. Governments argue these rights are aspirational and dependent on available resources.³⁹
2. Separation of Powers: Making these provisions justiciable would arguably allow courts to dictate government expenditure priorities, which is traditionally an executive and legislative function.
3. Progressive Realization: The provisions are meant to be achieved progressively ‘as and when practicable’, not immediately.
4. Political Nature: These are policy matters best left to political processes rather than judicial determination.⁴⁰

However, critics argue that non-justiciability undermines the very purpose of constitutionalizing these rights and renders them mere ‘pious declarations’ or ‘paper tigers’ with no real teeth.⁴¹

PATHWAYS TO ENFORCEABILITY

Despite the non-justiciability clause, there are several ways through which Chapter II provisions can be enforced or given practical effect:

1. Legislative Implementation

Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List empowers the National Assembly to make laws for the establishment and regulation of authorities that will promote and enforce observance of the fundamental objectives and directive principles.⁴² This means Parliament can pass specific legislation to implement Chapter II provisions, and such legislation would be justiciable.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria recognized this in Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation, where it held that the National Assembly was competent to enact the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act based on section 15(5) of the Constitution.⁴³ This decision opened the door for legislative enforcement of Chapter II. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently upheld this principle in subsequent decisions.

Following this precedent, several laws have been enacted to give effect to specific Chapter II provisions. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act operationalizes section 15(5)’s mandate to abolish corruption. The Universal Basic Education Act implements section 18’s directive on free compulsory primary education. The National Health Act advances section 17(3)(d)’s healthcare mandate. The National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) Act enforces section 17(3)(f)’s protection against exploitation. The Pension Reform Act implements section 17(3) provisions on old age care. The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act gives effect to section 20’s environmental protection mandate.

However, this approach has limitations. First, it depends entirely on legislative will—Parliament must actually pass the implementing legislation. Second, implementation is selective; some Chapter II provisions have robust legislation while others have none. Third, even where legislation exists, enforcement is often weak due to inadequate funding, corruption within enforcement agencies, and lack of political will. For instance, despite the existence of EFCC and ICPC, corruption remains endemic. Despite the UBE Act, many children still lack access to quality basic education. The existence of implementing legislation does not automatically translate to actual enjoyment of Chapter II rights.

2. Indirect Justiciability Through Chapter IV

If a breach of Chapter II also constitutes an infringement of Chapter IV (Fundamental Rights), the matter becomes justiciable. This ‘indirect approach’ was employed in Okogie v Attorney General of Lagos State, where the High Court held that the right to freedom of expression under Chapter IV encompassed the right to establish schools, thereby giving indirect effect to Chapter II provisions on education.⁴⁴

Similarly, in Adewole v Jakande, the court used Chapter IV’s freedom of expression to protect rights related to education under Chapter II.⁴⁵

3. The African Charter Route

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which has been domesticated into Nigerian law, contains provisions on economic, social and cultural rights similar to those in Chapter II. In Abacha v Fawehinmi, the Supreme Court held that the African Charter is binding on Nigerian courts and the rights enacted by it are enforceable.⁴⁶

The Federal High Court in Odofe v Attorney General of Federation relied on the African Charter to enforce the right to health of prison inmates, effectively enforcing Chapter II rights through the backdoor.⁴⁷ Similarly, in [Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Federal Government of Nigeria](https://www.achpr.org/sessions/descisions?id=63), the ECOWAS Community Court enforced the right to education under the African Charter.⁴⁸ The landmark SERAC v Nigeria decision by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights found Nigeria in violation of multiple socio-economic rights provisions of the African Charter, demonstrating that these rights are justiciable at the regional level even when non-justiciable domestically.

However, there is a constitutional challenge: section 1(3) of the Constitution makes any law inconsistent with constitutional provisions void to that extent. This raises questions about whether the African Charter can be used to enforce rights that the Constitution itself has made non-justiciable.⁴⁹

4. Public Interest Litigation

Although not directly based on Chapter II, public interest litigation can be used to hold government accountable for failures that also involve violations of justiciable rights. Civil society organizations and concerned citizens can use this mechanism to challenge governmental inaction.⁵⁰

5. Political Accountability

The electorate can hold political office holders accountable through the ballot box. Chapter II provisions can serve as standards against which to measure governmental performance during elections.⁵¹

6. Media and Civil Society Pressure

Section 22 empowers the mass media to uphold the fundamental objectives and hold government accountable. Combined with civil society advocacy, this creates a powerful non-judicial enforcement mechanism.⁵²

WHY CHAPTER II REMAINS FUNDAMENTAL DESPITE NON-JUSTICIABILITY

Several scholars have argued persuasively that the non-justiciability of Chapter II does not diminish its fundamental importance. Here are the key arguments:

1. They Are Constitutional Values and Ideals

The provisions in Chapter II represent the moral, social, political and economic values that Nigeria considers important and fundamental.⁵³ Not all values need to be justiciable to be important. For example, patriotism, religious tolerance, and dignity of labour are important values that cannot be enforced in courts but remain fundamental to national development.

As one scholar notes: ‘All values are enforceable in the courts of public opinion, but not all values (rights) are enforceable in the law courts’.⁵⁴

2. Moral Rights vs Legal Rights

The rights in Chapter II can be characterized as moral rights rather than legal rights. Moral rights are rights that individuals are entitled to regardless of whether they have legal remedies to protect them.⁵⁵ They create moral entitlements and corresponding moral obligations on the state, even without judicial enforceability.

Legal rights, on the other hand, are those protected by law and enforceable in courts. The fact that Chapter II rights are moral rather than legal rights does not make them less important—it simply means their enforcement mechanism is different.⁵⁶

3. Yardstick for Measuring Government Performance

Chapter II provides citizens with clear standards by which to evaluate governmental performance. Even without court enforcement, these provisions serve as a constitutional report card against which governments can be judged.⁵⁷

4. Guide for Policy Making

The provisions guide legislators and policy makers in formulating laws and policies. As the Supreme Court noted in Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation, it is presumed that the legislature does not make laws inconsistent with the fundamental objectives of Nigeria.⁵⁸

5. Aid to Constitutional Interpretation

Courts can use Chapter II to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Constitution. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a constitutional provision, Chapter II can provide guidance on the intention of the lawmakers.⁵⁹

6. Foundation for Socio-Economic Rights

Chapter II represents Nigeria’s attempt to constitutionalize second-generation rights (economic, social and cultural rights) alongside first-generation rights (civil and political rights) in Chapter IV. This holistic approach recognizes that civil and political rights cannot be fully enjoyed without economic and social rights.⁶⁰

As one commentator observed: ‘The full realization of civil and political rights without the enjoyment of economic rights is impossible’.⁶¹ A starving person cannot effectively exercise freedom of speech or right to vote.

7. Creates Positive Obligations on the State

Unlike Chapter IV which primarily creates negative obligations (what the state must not do), Chapter II creates positive obligations (what the state must do). This represents a progressive approach to constitutional rights, recognizing that meaningful freedom requires both protection from state interference and state action to create enabling conditions.⁶² This is particularly important in a developing country context where poverty, illiteracy, and poor health are not merely unfortunate circumstances but barriers to enjoying civil and political rights. A citizen dying from preventable disease cannot meaningfully exercise freedom of expression. A citizen without basic education cannot effectively participate in democratic processes. A citizen without adequate means of livelihood is vulnerable to exploitation regardless of constitutional prohibitions.

The practical significance of Chapter II’s positive obligations becomes clear when we consider that no amount of civil-political rights protection can substitute for basic welfare. A country where citizens have freedom of speech but no food security, freedom of movement but no functioning healthcare system, or free elections but endemic unemployment cannot claim to have fulfilled its constitutional obligations. Chapter II recognizes that the state has an affirmative duty to create conditions for human flourishing, not merely to refrain from harmful interference. This understanding is critical for evaluating government performance—the question is not just whether government respects rights (negative duty), but whether it actively promotes citizen welfare (positive duty). Even without judicial enforcement, this framework provides citizens and civil society with powerful arguments for demanding better governance and holding leaders accountable through political processes.

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

Before examining how other countries handle socio-economic rights, it is useful to understand the fundamental difference between how Nigeria treats civil-political rights (Chapter IV) and socio-economic rights (Chapter II):

This table illustrates the constitutional hierarchy that privileges civil-political rights over socio-economic rights. While both are called ‘fundamental’, only Chapter IV rights can be enforced in court. This dichotomy reflects the historical division in international human rights law between ‘first generation’ (civil-political) and ‘second generation’ (socio-economic) rights, a division increasingly criticized as artificial and harmful.

The Indian Experience

Nigeria’s Chapter II was largely influenced by Part IV of the Indian Constitution which contains Directive Principles of State Policy. The Indian Constitution in Article 37 explicitly states that while the principles are not enforceable in court, they are nevertheless ‘fundamental in the governance of the country’.⁶³

Over time, Indian courts have creatively given effect to Directive Principles through judicial activism. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court held that fundamental rights must be read harmoniously with directive principles.⁶⁴ In several cases, Indian courts have expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights to incorporate directive principles.

For example, in Unnikrishnan JP v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Indian Supreme Court held that the right to education up to age 14 is a fundamental right flowing from the right to life under Article 21, thereby making a directive principle justiciable.⁶⁵

Nigerian courts could adopt similar approaches to bridge the gap between Chapters II and IV.

South African Constitution

The South African Constitution directly incorporates socio-economic rights as justiciable fundamental rights. Section 26 provides for the right to housing, section 27 for healthcare, food, water and social security, and section 29 for education.⁶⁶

The South African Constitutional Court has developed jurisprudence on enforcing these rights. In Government of Republic of South Africa v Grootboom, the Court held that the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within available resources to achieve progressive realization of these rights.⁶⁷ This approach balances judicial enforcement with recognition of resource constraints.

Nigeria could learn from South Africa’s experience in making socio-economic rights justiciable while respecting separation of powers and resource limitations.

Ugandan Constitution

The Ugandan Constitution (as amended in 2005) has moved towards making what were previously policy objectives justiciable. For instance, Articles 29 and 30 provide for justiciable rights to freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and education. Article 33 creates justiciable rights for women, while Article 34 does same for children.⁶⁸

This demonstrates that constitutional amendment can transform non-justiciable objectives into enforceable rights.

ARGUMENTS FOR MAKING CHAPTER II JUSTICIABLE

Several compelling arguments have been advanced for amending the Constitution to make Chapter II justiciable:

1. Indivisibility of Human Rights

Modern human rights theory recognizes that civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.⁶⁹ The [Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993)](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/vienna-declaration-and-programme-action) explicitly states this. Maintaining a hierarchy where only civil and political rights are justiciable while socio-economic rights are not contradicts this principle.

2. Enhancing Accountability

Justiciability would significantly enhance governmental accountability. As things stand, governments can ignore Chapter II provisions with impunity since there is no judicial remedy for non-compliance.⁷⁰ Making these provisions justiciable would create meaningful consequences for governmental failures.

3. Combating Corruption

Several scholars have argued that justiciability of Chapter II, particularly section 15(5) on abolishing corruption, would be a powerful tool in fighting corruption.⁷¹ Courts could compel government to implement anti-corruption measures more vigorously.

4. Promoting Development

Non-justiciability has been identified as an impediment to socio-economic development.⁷² If citizens could approach courts to enforce their rights to education, healthcare, employment, and adequate living conditions, this could accelerate development.

5. Consistency with International Law

Nigeria has ratified several international instruments that recognize socio-economic rights as enforceable rights, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Making Chapter II non-justiciable creates inconsistency with Nigeria’s international obligations.⁷³

6. Democratic Legitimacy

The people gave themselves the Constitution including Chapter II. Preventing judicial enforcement of provisions the people have constitutionalized raises questions about democratic legitimacy and the supremacy of the Constitution.⁷⁴

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS: WHY CHAPTER II SHOULD REMAIN NON-JUSTICIABLE

Despite the compelling arguments for justiciability, there are legitimate reasons for maintaining the status quo:

1. Separation of Powers

Making Chapter II justiciable would allow courts to compel specific government expenditures and policy choices. This arguably violates separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to usurp executive and legislative functions in matters of economic policy and resource allocation.⁷⁵

2. Institutional Capacity

Courts may lack the expertise to make complex policy decisions about resource allocation, economic planning, and social welfare programmes. Judges are trained in law, not economics or public administration.⁷⁶

3. Resource Constraints

Full implementation of Chapter II would require enormous financial resources that Nigeria simply does not have. Making these provisions justiciable could lead to court orders that the government cannot realistically comply with, potentially undermining respect for the judiciary.⁷⁷

4. Progressive Realization

The Constitution uses phrases like ‘as and when practicable’, recognizing that these objectives should be achieved progressively. This progressive realization is better achieved through political processes than judicial decree.⁷⁸

5. Political Accountability is Sufficient

The electorate can hold governments accountable through elections. If governments fail to deliver on Chapter II promises, voters can elect new leaders. This political accountability may be more effective than judicial enforcement.⁷⁹

6. Legislative Implementation Remains Available

The National Assembly can still pass specific legislation to implement Chapter II provisions. Such legislation would be justiciable. This provides a middle ground between complete non-justiciability and full judicial enforcement.⁸⁰

THE PATH FORWARD: RECOMMENDATIONS

The justiciability of Chapter II has been a recurring issue in Nigeria’s constitutional discourse. During various constitutional conferences and reform attempts—including the 2005 National Political Reform Conference, the 2014 National Conference, and ongoing National Assembly constitutional review committees—the question of making Chapter II justiciable has been raised repeatedly. However, despite widespread acknowledgement of the problem, concrete reform has remained elusive, often stalling due to political considerations and concerns about resource implications.

The former Governor of Ondo State, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), publicly challenged the [Nigerian Bar Association](https://www.nigerianbar.org.ng/) in 2021 to approach the courts to seek a declaration that Chapter II is justiciable, arguing that the current position is not set in stone and can be revisited through strategic litigation. This challenge highlights that reform need not wait for constitutional amendment—creative judicial interpretation could also achieve the goal. Organizations like the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) have been at the forefront of using strategic litigation to advance socio-economic rights, demonstrating that even within current constraints, creative legal strategies can yield results.

Based on the foregoing analysis, and considering both international best practices and Nigeria’s specific circumstances, the following recommendations are proposed:

For Constitutional Reform

1. Selective Justiciability: Rather than making all of Chapter II justiciable, the Constitution could be amended to make certain core provisions justiciable while retaining non-justiciability for others. For example, rights to basic education, healthcare, and minimum living standards could be made justiciable. The constitutional amendment process requires a bill to be passed by two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, followed by ratification by at least two-thirds (24) of the 36 State Houses of Assembly. While this threshold is high, it is not insurmountable if there is genuine political will.
2. Qualified Justiciability: Following the South African model, provisions could be made justiciable with qualifications like ‘progressive realization within available resources’ and ‘reasonable legislative and other measures’. This balances enforcement with practical constraints. Courts would not order government to immediately provide free university education for all, but could declare unconstitutional a situation where government makes no reasonable efforts or allocates negligible resources despite availability.
3. Remove Section 6(6)(c): As currently worded, section 6(6)(c) is an ouster clause inappropriate in a democratic constitution. It should be repealed to allow courts to use Chapter II in constitutional interpretation even if not as basis for standalone claims.⁸¹ This would not make Chapter II fully justiciable, but would remove the absolute bar that currently exists, allowing judges more flexibility in integrating Chapter II with Chapter IV rights.
4. Establish Constitutional Court: A specialized Constitutional Court could be better equipped to handle the complex policy issues involved in enforcing socio-economic rights.⁸² Such a court would have expertise in balancing rights with resource constraints, and could develop appropriate remedies that respect separation of powers while ensuring accountability. Kenya’s establishment of a separate Constitutional Court provides a useful model.

For the Judiciary

1. Judicial Activism: Courts should adopt a more activist approach in reading Chapter II together with Chapter IV, following the Indian Supreme Court’s example.
2. Use of African Charter: Courts should more robustly apply the African Charter to give indirect effect to Chapter II rights.
3. Liberal Interpretation: When interpreting any constitutional provision, courts should lean towards interpretations that advance Chapter II objectives rather than frustrate them.

For the Legislature

1. Implementing Legislation: The National Assembly should enact comprehensive legislation to implement key Chapter II provisions, particularly on education, healthcare, employment, and social security.
2. Regular Review: Parliament should establish mechanisms for regular review of government compliance with Chapter II and hold public hearings on implementation.
3. Budgetary Allocation: Laws should be passed requiring minimum budgetary allocations for education, healthcare, and other Chapter II priorities.

For the Executive

1. Practical Implementation: Government should treat Chapter II as genuinely binding, not mere aspirations. Ministries, Departments and Agencies should have clear implementation plans tied to Chapter II provisions.
2. Annual Reporting: The President should present an annual report to the National Assembly on steps taken to implement Chapter II provisions.
3. Policy Alignment: All government policies should be assessed for consistency with Chapter II before adoption.

For Citizens and Civil Society

1. Public Awareness: Massive public education campaigns should be conducted on the contents and importance of Chapter II. Most Nigerians are unaware that the Constitution promises free education, adequate healthcare, and decent employment opportunities. Citizens cannot demand what they don’t know exists. Schools should teach Chapter II alongside Chapter IV so students understand both their rights and what government owes them. Civil society organizations should develop simplified versions of Chapter II in local languages and disseminate through community meetings, radio programmes, and social media.
2. Political Pressure: Citizens should make Chapter II compliance a key criterion in voting decisions. During elections, voters should demand that candidates explain how they will implement specific Chapter II provisions. Political parties should be required to show how their manifestos align with Chapter II objectives. Town hall meetings should hold elected officials accountable by asking specific questions: How many citizens have adequate means of livelihood (section 17(3)(a))? What percentage of children have access to quality education (section 18)? How has insecurity (section 14(2)(b)) been addressed? Electoral consequences—voting out non-performers—remain the most powerful enforcement mechanism available to citizens.
3. Strategic Litigation: Civil society should pursue strategic litigation using the indirect justiciability approaches identified earlier. When government policy violates both Chapter II and Chapter IV rights, frame litigation around Chapter IV while showing the Chapter II implications. For instance, if government demolishes homes without providing alternative accommodation, sue for violation of right to dignity (Chapter IV) while emphasizing violation of social welfare objectives (Chapter II). If environmental pollution affects health, sue for right to life (Chapter IV) while invoking environmental protection mandate (Chapter II). Creative lawyering can give judicial effect to Chapter II through the backdoor of Chapter IV. Public interest litigation should be pursued aggressively, with law firms and senior lawyers taking pro bono cases that advance Chapter II objectives.
4. Monitoring and Advocacy: CSOs should establish monitoring mechanisms to track government performance on Chapter II metrics and advocate for compliance. Create scorecards showing which Chapter II provisions government has implemented or failed to implement. Publish annual ‘State of Chapter II’ reports. Use Freedom of Information requests to obtain data on government expenditure on education, healthcare, welfare programmes. Name and shame non-compliant government officials. Organize peaceful protests demanding Chapter II implementation. Use social media campaigns to highlight specific failures—#FreeEducationNow, #HealthcareForAll, #EndCorruptionNow. Build coalitions across ethnic and religious lines to demand better governance. Partner with media houses to give Chapter II violations sustained coverage. Collaborate with institutions like the [National Human Rights Commission](https://www.nigeriarights.gov.ng/) to amplify advocacy efforts. The goal is to make Chapter II compliance politically unavoidable even without judicial enforcement.

For Legal Education

1. Curriculum Integration: Law schools should dedicate substantial time to teaching Chapter II, not just mentioning it in passing. Constitutional law courses should include detailed study of socio-economic rights jurisprudence from Nigeria and comparative jurisdictions. Institutions like the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies should lead research into Chapter II implementation and enforcement strategies.
2. Clinical Legal Education: Law students should be trained in using creative legal strategies to give effect to Chapter II rights.

CONCLUSION

Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution represents one of the most ambitious and forward-looking aspects of Nigeria’s constitutional framework. It articulates a comprehensive vision for national development grounded in democracy, social justice, equality, and human dignity. The provisions set out clear objectives across political, economic, social, educational, environmental and cultural domains, and explicitly make implementation a constitutional duty of all organs of government.

The non-justiciability of these provisions, while controversial, does not negate their fundamental importance. These are constitutional values and ideals that define what kind of nation Nigeria aspires to be. They provide standards for evaluating governmental performance, guide policy formulation, and serve as moral imperatives even where legal enforcement is lacking.

However, more than four decades after these provisions were first introduced in the 1979 Constitution, the gap between aspiration and reality remains vast. Poverty, unemployment, inadequate healthcare, poor education, corruption, and inequality continue to plague Nigeria. The persistence of these problems despite constitutional commitments suggests that non-justiciability, while not the only problem, is a significant impediment to realizing the objectives of Chapter II.

The time has come for Nigeria to seriously consider making at least the core provisions of Chapter II justiciable, learning from the experiences of countries like South Africa, India, and Uganda. This does not mean courts should dictate government budgets or replace democratic decision-making. Rather, it means creating meaningful accountability mechanisms to ensure that the government’s constitutional obligations to its citizens are not reduced to mere paper promises.

As Professor Ben Nwabueze eloquently stated:

Democracy cannot be dissociated from ‘government for the people’ as part of its objectives. Democracy so dissociated is like a person embarked upon a journey and yet with no clear direction as to which way to go and no idea of where he is going, or to change the metaphor, it is like a boat adrift in the sea.⁸³

Chapter II provides that clear direction. It is up to the Nigerian people—through their elected representatives, their courts, and their civic engagement—to ensure that these fundamental objectives and directive principles are not just constitutional decoration, but living principles that shape governance and improve lives.

The question is not whether Chapter II is fundamental—it clearly is. The question is whether Nigeria is ready to fully embrace and implement the vision it has enshrined in its Constitution.

---

REFERENCES

Footnotes

1. PN Nnawuba, ‘Non-Justiciability and Enforceability of Chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution as an Impediment to Enjoyment of Economic Rights and Development’ (2022) 6(2) African Journal of Law and Human Rights 148, 148. ↩

2. LO Nwauzi, ‘How Fundamental are the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles Under Chapter II of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999’ (2017) 3(3) Donnish Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution 29, 30. ↩

3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 6(6)(c). ↩

4. AS Hornby (ed), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 631. ↩

5. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn, West Publishing 2009) 744. ↩

6. Nwauzi (n 2) 30. ↩

7. IF Omotosho, ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of Nigeria’ (2018) 6(6) Global Educational Research Journal 768, 773. ↩

8. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 13. ↩

9. P Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary (4th edn, LexisNexis 2012) 1169. ↩

10. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edn, West Publishing 1979) 1233. ↩

11. Nwauzi (n 2) 31. ↩

12. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 6(6)(c). ↩

13. Nnawuba (n 1) 149. ↩

14. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 14(1). ↩

15. ibid s 14(2)(a). ↩

16. ibid s 14(2)(b). ↩

17. ibid s 14(2)(c). ↩

18. ibid ss 14(3)-(4). ↩

19. ibid s 15. ↩

20. ibid s 15(5). ↩

21. Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt 772) 222. ↩

22. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 16. ↩

23. ibid s 16(2)(c). ↩

24. ibid s 17. ↩

25. ibid s 17(3). ↩

26. ibid s 18. ↩

27. Omotosho (n 7) 771. ↩

28. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 19. ↩

29. ibid s 20. ↩

30. Attorney General of Lagos State v Attorney General of Federation (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113. ↩

31. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 21. ↩

32. ibid s 22. ↩

33. ibid s 23. ↩

34. ibid s 24. ↩

35. Archbishop Olubunmi Okogie v Attorney General of Lagos State (1981) 2 NCLR 337. ↩

36. Nnawuba (n 1) 148-149. ↩

37. ibid 149. ↩

38. ibid. ↩

39. OVC Ikpeze, ‘Right to Education: Case of the Rural Poor and Globalization in Nigeria’ (2008) 1(1) Journal of Women and Minority Rights 45, 48. ↩

40. Omotosho (n 7) 772. ↩

41. Akinsanya Adeoye, ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Nigerian Constitution’ (1993) 46(2) Pakistan Horizon 23, 35. ↩

42. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Second Schedule, Part I, Item 60(a). ↩

43. Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation (n 21). ↩

44. Okogie v Attorney General of Lagos State (1981) 1 NCLR 218. ↩

45. Adewole v Jakande (unreported) cited in Nnawuba (n 1) 150. ↩

46. Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt 660) 228 (SC). ↩

47. Odofe v Attorney General of Federation (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt 872) 417. ↩

48. Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v Federal Government of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/APP/12/07, ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (27 October 2009). ↩

49. Nnawuba (n 1) 151. ↩

50. ibid 157. ↩

51. Nwauzi (n 2) 33. ↩

52. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 22. ↩

53. Omotosho (n 7) 769. ↩

54. ibid. ↩

55. Joel Feinberg, Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty (Princeton University Press 1980) 137. ↩

56. Omotosho (n 7) 769. ↩

57. Nwauzi (n 2) 32. ↩

58. Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation (n 21). ↩

59. Nnawuba (n 1) 154. ↩

60. ibid 156. ↩

61. ibid. ↩

62. Nwauzi (n 2) 32. ↩

63. Constitution of India 1950, art 37. ↩

64. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597. ↩

65. Unnikrishnan JP v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178. ↩

66. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, ss 26, 27, 29. ↩

67. Government of Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC). ↩

68. Constitution of Uganda 1995 (as amended 2005), arts 29, 30, 33, 34. ↩

69. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights (25 June 1993) UN Doc A/CONF.157/23, para 5. ↩

70. Nnawuba (n 1) 149. ↩

71. Attorney General of Ondo State v Attorney General of Federation (n 21). ↩

72. Nnawuba (n 1) 148. ↩

73. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) OAU Doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev 5; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3. ↩

74. Nnawuba (n 1) 156. ↩

75. Omotosho (n 7) 772. ↩

76. ibid. ↩

77. ibid. ↩

78. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 18(3). ↩

79. Nwauzi (n 2) 33. ↩

80. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Second Schedule, Part I, Item 60(a). ↩

81. Nnawuba (n 1) 156-157. ↩

82. ibid 157. ↩

83. BO Nwabueze, Judicialism and Good Governance in Africa (Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies 2009) 55. ↩