Authored By: Favour Bassey Onoyom
University of Calabar
Abstract
Nigeria as a country, has experienced pervasive gender-based violence (GBV) across its geopolitical zones, with varying degrees of legal protection offered at the state level. The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (VAPP Act) of 2015 represents a comprehensive legislative framework designed to criminalize and deter GBV. However, as of 2026, not all states in Nigeria have domesticated the VAPP Act, creating legal lacunae that compromise effective prevention, prosecution, and redress mechanisms for survivors. This article interrogates whether the Federal Government of Nigeria can be held liable under international law for state negligence arising from its failure to ensure uniform protection against GBV across all states. Employing doctrinal legal analysis, this piece explores pertinent international human rights instruments, domestic legal frameworks, relevant judicial interpretations, and recent developments in GBV jurisprudence. The article contends that Nigeria’s federal structure does not absolve the Federal Government of its international obligations to protect human rights, including the right to dignity, security, and equality. Moreover, it argues that international law imposes a duty to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide redress for GBV irrespective of internal legislative inconsistencies. By examining state responsibility, the doctrine of due diligence, and emerging norms in GBV accountability, this article offers a nuanced assessment of potential international legal liability and proffers suggestions for harmonizing Nigeria’s domestic legal landscape with its international commitments.
Introduction
Gender-based violence (GBV) is both a violation of human rights and a pervasive public health challenge. In Nigeria, GBV manifests in multiple forms, rape, intimate partner violence, harmful widowhood practices, female genital mutilation, and child marriage, undermining the dignity and well-being of affected populations, particularly women and girls. The VAPP Act (2015) was enacted as a landmark federal statute to provide comprehensive legal protection against such abuses. Yet, federal structure of Nigeria, vests significant autonomy in its constituent states, and the VAPP Act’s efficacy has been impeded by uneven domestication across the federation.
This dissonance raises critical questions about state responsibility, Can the Federal Government be held internationally liable for state negligence where state laws fail to protect individuals from GBV? Should Nigeria’s international obligations under treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) translate into enforceable duties irrespective of domestic legislative compliance? This article will explore these questions by analyzing intersecting domestic and international legal frameworks, relevant judicial interpretations, and emerging trends in state accountability for GBV.
Methodology
This article employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, drawing on international treaties, conventions, judicial decisions, Nigerian domestic statutes, legal scholarship, and authoritative reports from international and regional human rights bodies. Primary sources include treaty texts, national constitutions, and case law, while secondary literature provides critical perspectives on state obligations and GBV jurisprudence. The research synthesizes diverse legal materials to assess whether and how international law attributes liability to states for failure to protect against GBV in federated systems like Nigeria’s.
Main Body
1. Legal Framework
1.1 International Human Rights Obligations
Under international law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, and these duties extend to preventing and responding to GBV. Key instruments include:
CEDAW: Nigeria ratified CEDAW in 1985, committing to eliminate discrimination against women and adopt appropriate measures to ensure gender equality^1. The CEDAW Committee has interpreted discrimination to encompass gender-based violence, requiring states to enact laws, eliminate discriminatory practices, and provide effective remedies for violations^2.
ICESCR and ICCPR: These core treaties impose obligations on states to protect civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to life, security, and equality before the law^3.
African Charter and Maputo Protocol: Nigeria is a state party to the ACHPR and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol), which explicitly mandates the elimination of harmful practices and GBV^4.
International jurisprudence and treaty bodies have consistently held that failure to address GBV constitutes a breach of a state’s obligations where the state exercises effective control over the territory and population, and fails to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, and punish violations^5.
1.2 Domestic Legal Architecture in Nigeria
Nigeria’s legal system recognizes the supremacy of the Constitution, under which federal and state governments share law-making powers according to the Exclusive, Concurrent, and Residual legislative lists. The VAPP Act was enacted by the National Assembly as a federal law to address violence against persons comprehensively, including but not limited to domestic violence, sexual assault, and harmful cultural practices. However, criminal law is within the Concurrent List, and states must domesticate federal statutes for them to apply within their territories^6.
As of 2026, several states have domesticated the VAPP Act, while others have not, resulting in a patchwork of protections. This disparity affects enforcement, access to justice, and survivors’ rights, raising concerns about equal protection and non-discrimination.
2. Judicial Interpretation
2.1 International Jurisprudence on State Responsibility for GBV
International courts and human rights mechanisms have gradually developed the doctrine that states can be held accountable for failing to prevent and respond to GBV. In Opuz v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights require states to adopt legislative and other measures to protect individuals from domestic violence and to provide effective remedies^7.
Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has emphasized state duties to prevent, investigate, and punish GBV, underscoring that inaction by authorities can constitute a human rights violation^8.
These decisions affirm that entrenched gender discrimination and toleration of violence can engage state responsibility, particularly where authorities fail to act with due diligence.
2.2 Domestic Judicial Approaches in Nigeria
Nigerian courts have recognized that the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including dignity of the person, personal liberty, and equality before the law. In Paul v. Nigerian Army & Ors, the Supreme Court upheld the right to dignity and condemned degrading treatment^9. However, domestic jurisprudence on GBV and the consequences of non-domestication of federal statutes remains nascent.
The courts have, on occasion, struck down discriminatory practices or state inaction that violate constitutional rights, but there is limited authority directly addressing the nexus between federal non-domestication of GBV laws and state liability.
3. Critical Analysis
3.1 Concept of State Negligence in International Law
“State negligence” in the context of international human rights law refers to a state’s failure to exercise due diligence to prevent human rights violations, protect victims, and ensure accountability. Due diligence encompasses legislative, administrative, judicial, and educational measures designed to combat and eradicate human rights abuses.
In federated systems, delineating liability becomes complex when sub-national entities hold legislative authority. Nevertheless, international law does not permit states to evade obligations by devolving responsibilities internally, a state is internationally responsible for all acts and omissions within its territory that undermine treaty protections^10.
3.2 Federal Government Obligations in a Federal System
While Nigeria’s Constitution allocates law-making powers between tiers of government, international legal obligations rest with the sovereign state. The Federal Government cannot evade international responsibilities on the basis of internal constitutional arrangements. As emphasized by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the responsibility to ensure rights “rests with the State party as a whole and is not contingent on the decentralization of functions or resources” 11.
Thus, the Federal Government’s failure to ensure uniform domestication and enforcement of the VAPP Act where GBV persists could be construed as a breach of Nigeria’s international obligations, particularly if states lack adequate alternative protections.
3.3 Attribution and Liability for State Negligence
Attribution in international law requires that the impugned conduct, whether an act or omission, be attributable to the state. In cases where state agents fail to enforce laws, or where structural deficiencies result in systemic violations, such omissions can be attributed to the state.
In the Nigerian context, where the Federal Government holds oversight functions and constitutional responsibilities to uphold fundamental rights, persistent gaps in domesticating and enforcing GBV protections may amount to state negligence. Further, where federal institutions, like the Police or the judiciary, fail to ensure accountability in non-domesticated states, the Federal Government’s liability may be engaged.
4. Recent Developments
4.1 Legislative and Policy Initiatives
In the past few years, there has been increased advocacy for universal domestication of the VAPP Act, with civil society organizations and women’s rights advocates pressuring lagging states. Some states have introduced alternative GBV laws in the absence of domestication, though these vary in scope and effectiveness.
At the international level, treaty monitoring bodies have repeatedly urged Nigeria to harmonize its domestic laws with its treaty obligations, eliminate discriminatory provisions, and ensure effective enforcement mechanisms for GBV cases.
4.2 Emerging Jurisprudence on State Responsibility
Globally, international human rights bodies are increasingly willing to scrutinize state omissions in GBV contexts. For example, communications before regional human rights courts and UN treaty bodies have highlighted state inaction as a form of gender-based discrimination requiring reparations and systemic reforms.
In Nigeria, human rights litigation has spotlighted failures in responding to GBV, prompting public discourse on the need for legislative and institutional reforms.
Suggestions / Way Forward
1. Universal Domestication of the VAPP Act
The Federal Government should take proactive measures to ensure that all states domesticate the VAPP Act or adopt equivalent legislation that meets international standards. This could involve incentivizing compliance through conditional federal support, technical assistance, and policy dialogues with sub-national governments.
2. Strengthening Federal Oversight Mechanisms
Federal institutions should strengthen monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure consistent protection against GBV across states. This includes capacity building for law enforcement, judiciary, and service providers in non-domesticated states.
3. Harmonizing Domestic and International Obligations
Nigeria should undertake a comprehensive review of domestic laws and policies to ensure alignment with its international human rights obligations, particularly those under CEDAW and the Maputo Protocol. The incorporation of international treaty provisions into domestic law could reinforce enforceability and standards of protection.
4. Enhancing Access to Justice and Remedies
States must invest in accessible, victim-centered justice mechanisms, including specialized courts, legal aid, health and psychosocial services, and protection measures for survivors. The Federal Government could establish a GBV victims’ fund to support services nationwide.
5. Strategic Litigation and Accountability
Civil society organizations should be supported to engage in strategic litigation that challenges systemic failures in GBV protection and seeks accountability for state negligence. Such cases can catalyze jurisprudential development and policy reforms.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s federal structure and legislative autonomy for states present challenges in achieving uniform protection against gender-based violence. However, international law imposes non-derogable obligations on the Federal Government to ensure that human rights, including the right to dignity, equality, and security, are protected throughout its territory. The failure to ensure domestication and enforcement of robust GBV protections in all states may engage state negligence under international law, making Nigeria internationally accountable for omissions that perpetuate discrimination and violence against women and vulnerable populations.
While domestic courts have yet to fully grapple with these issues, evolving international jurisprudence and normative developments underscore the duty of states to act with due diligence. Achieving legal harmonization, strengthening oversight, and enhancing accountability mechanisms are critical steps toward ensuring that all Nigerians enjoy protection from GBV, regardless of where they reside. The Federal Government must take leadership in bridging legislative gaps and fulfilling its international commitments to uphold human rights.
REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY (Bluebook Style)
International Instruments
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, June 27, 1981, 1520 U.N.T.S. 217.
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol), July 11, 2003.
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 (Jan. 28, 2002).
Domestic Legislation
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended).
Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, No. 46 (2015) (Nigeria).
Cases
Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009).
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (July 29, 1988).
Paul v. Nigerian Army, (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1237) 28 (S.C.).
UN & Treaty Body Materials
Comm. On the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 19: Violence Against Women, U.N. Doc. A/47/38 (1992).
Comm. On the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-Based Violence Against Women, Updating General Recommendation No. 19, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35 (2017).
Comm. On Econ., Soc. & Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23 (1990).
Books & Academic Commentary
HILARY CHARLESWORTH & CHRISTINE CHINKIN, THE BOUNDARIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: A FEMINIST ANALYSIS 213–220 (2000).
MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 546–552 (9th ed. 2021).
DINAH SHELTON, REMEDIES IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 97–110 (3d ed. 2015).
ABIODUN ALAO, FEDERALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN NIGERIA 184–190 (2019).
SAMPLE FOOTNOTES (FOR INSERTION INTO THE ARTICLE BODY)
¹ See Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women art. 2, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
² Comm. On the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation No. 19, ¶¶ 6–9, U.N. Doc. A/47/38 (1992).
³ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arts. 2, 6–7, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
⁴ Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa arts. 2, 4–5, July 11, 2003.
⁵ Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02, ¶¶ 129–130 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2009).
⁶ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended) § 4 & Second Schedule.
⁷ Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (2015) (Nigeria).
⁸ Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts art. 4, G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 (Jan. 28, 2002).
⁹ Comm. On Econ., Soc. & Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3, ¶ 14, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23 (1990).
¹⁰ Paul v. Nigerian Army, (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1237) 28 (S.C.).
