Authored By: Zoe Ayomikun Ibikunle
Afe-Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti
Abstract
Domestic violence remains a persistent global issue despite extensive efforts from the law to protect individuals against it. Studies have consistently shown that women often cite concern for their children as a main reason to justify remaining in abusive marriages. This paper delves into the paradox of “staying power”, examining how laws that have been put in place to protect women and children may unintentionally fortify institutional pressures that trap victims in violent/abusive homes. Using a comparative analysis across Nigeria, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, this study examines how the framework of custody, patriarchal standards and inadequate implementation affects and shapes women’s choices. It asserts that staying “for the children” shows a failure in the system rather than honest agency, and calls for a reformation that combines legal protection with socio-economic support to enable safe, self-sufficient and liberated exits.
Introduction
In 2023, a famous Nigerian gospel musician, Osinachi Nwachukwu was killed as a result of abuse from her husband, Peter Nwachukwu which ultimately led to her untimely death.[1] Her death sparked national outrage after it was discovered that she endured long-term abuse but remained in the marriage largely “for the sake of her children”. Her death not only revealed the sad consequences of silence and endurance but also highlighted a recurring dilemma faced by many women, the choice between personal safety and the perception of maternal obligation.
The United Nations defines domestic violence as “any act of gender-based violence that results in physical, sexual or psychological harm,” emphasising its structural and human rights dimensions.[2] Under Nigerian law, domestic violence is addressed within the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (VAPP Act), which defines it broadly to include any act that causes harm or injury to a person within a domestic relationship. The Act recognises forms of violence such as physical, sexual, psychological, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse, as well as intimidation and harassment. This comprehensive scope reflects Nigeria’s attempt to align with international standards on protecting victims of gender-based violence.[3]
It is obvious that laws have been put in place however enforcement remains weak and cultural norms and societal pressures more often than not override legal safeguards. The common justification among victims remains “I stayed for my children”. This pattern is not unique to Nigeria, but is widely observed in cross-cultural studies.[4]
This issue is legally significant because despite the VAPP and family protection laws, cases of domestic violence remains underreported and this is largely as a result of fear in victims. Courts often prioritize keeping families together, and this unintentionally reinforces harmful family dynamics. Women often do not feel safe enough to come out as victims, and this is because lack of shelters, financial independence and social support systems make “staying” seem like the only option.
This paper contends that women’s decision to stay “for the children” reflects systemic shortcomings in law and policy, not genuine autonomy.
This article adopts a qualitative, analytical, and comparative approach to examine the convergence between law, gender, and social dynamics surrounding domestic violence. The study relies primarily on doctrinal analysis of legal instruments and cross-jurisdictional comparison to assess how legal frameworks affect women’s decision making in abusive marriages.
The research draws upon statutory provisions such as the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (Nigeria) (n 3) and the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA)[5], which control family and marital relations. At the international level, the paper references United Nations declarations and reports including the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (UNGA Resolution 48/104, 1993) and empirical findings from VAWnet[6] and related studies addressing women’s lived experiences in abusive relationships. In addition, the article employs a comparative legal analysis, examining how domestic violence laws and custody frameworks in India[7], the United Kingdom[8], and the United States[9] shape victims’ ability to leave abusive marriages. The analysis is further supported by academic commentaries, peer-reviewed journals and empirical data from governmental and non-governmental organisations[10] addressing gender-based violence.
This multi-dimensional methodology ensures that the discussion is grounded in both legal theory and social reality, enabling a panoramic understanding of the “staying power” phenomenon.
Legal Framework
The VAPP (n 3) is an Act to eliminate violence in private and public life, prohibit all forms of violence against persons and to provide maximum protection and effective remedies for victims and punishment of offenders; and for related matters.[11] The content of the Act is rich in its provisions as it covers most of the prevalent forms of violence in Nigeria today ranging from physical violence; psychological violence; sexual violence; harmful traditional practices; and socio-economic violence. The National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) is named as the service provider.[12] The (VAPP Act) (n 3) provides extensive protections for victims of domestic violence in Nigeria. It criminalises physical, emotional, psychological, and economic abuse, while also offering remedies such as protection orders and compensation for victims. However, despite these provisions, many women remain unable to utilise these safeguards due to fear, social stigma, and economic dependence, showing that legal protection alone is insufficient without strong enforcement and support systems.
The Matrimonial Causes Act (n 5) rules issues that pertain to custody and maintenance in Nigeria, guaranteeing that the best interests and welfare of the child takes precedence in decisions concerning custody, while obliging spouses to provide financial support to dependent spouses. However, enforcement proves to be weak, as victims often face hurdles in an attempt to seek justice despite the fact that there are available institutions such as the Police and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which are obligated to investigate and address violation of rights. In addition to this, there are state-level disparities in the ratification of the VAPP Act, with several states yet to domesticate it, creating unequal protection for victims across the federation. Constitutionally, Section 34(1) of the 1999 Constitution[13], guarantees the right to dignity and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, a right that is frequently violated in domestic abuse cases. Nigeria is required to protect women from all types of gender-based violence and provide efficient remedies in accordance with its commitments under CEDAW and the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. However, victims are still put in danger and abuse cycles are sustained due to the disconnect between Nigeria’s legal obligations and their actual implementation.[14]
Judicial Interpretation
Historically, Nigerian courts have been proven to be reluctant to interfere in what they view as “private family matters”. In Akinbuwa v Akinbuwa (1998), the court stressed the need for reconciliation and familial unity, often overlooking the impact and lived realities of abuse. Such attitude from the judiciary shows a preference for preserving marriage rather than ensuring the personal safety of women.[15] Irrespective of the fact that section 71 of the Matrimonial Causes Act orders that decisions regarding custody reflects “the best interest of the child”, courts often misinterpret this by prioritising paternal authority or the preservation of the family over the safety of the mother.[16] The lack of trauma-informed or gender-sensitive rulings sustains a pattern of silence and endurance among victims.
In a bid to protect women and children, India’s Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 established residence and protection orders.[17]During custody hearings, courts are required by the UK’s Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to take into account the effects of abuse on children.[18] In a similar vein, survivors gain access to emergency shelters and custody safeguards under the US Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)[19], which promotes overall safety.
In Nigeria, societal, religious and cultural doctrines and norms frame marriage as a sacred and divine and divorce as shameful and reproached. Women are often coerced and pressured to “endure for the children”, turning moral ideals from the past into emotional blackmail that entraps victims into abusive marriages.[20]
Lack of financial stability is a major barrier. It is not feasible to leave when there is limited access to housing, employment and childcare. Global studies including VAWnet and UN Women reports, show that over 40–60% of mothers who remain in abusive homes cite financial instability, economic dependence and concern for children as their main reasons for staying.[21]
Legal protections are compromised by insensitive police responses, a lack of specialized shelters, and lax enforcement of the VAPP Act. When survivors seek assistance, they frequently experience secondary victimization, which erodes their trust in institutions.[22]
The paradox of “staying power” is that although mothers stay to “protect” children, exposure to domestic violence causes psychological harm and perpetuates a cycle of intergenerational abuse. It is detrimental to the overall development of a child, and studies show that children who witness domestic violence often develop trauma responses or worse, they repeat similar patterns in adulthood.[23]
The recent adoption of the VAPP Act by a number of states, including Anambra and Gombe, indicates a slow but steady advancement. Since Osinachi’s passing, advocacy campaigns spearheaded by FIDA and non-governmental organizations have pushed for more robust domestic violence response systems.[24]
Calls for integrated frameworks addressing child exposure to domestic violence have been reaffirmed by the UN and WHO. Reforms in the US and the UK now place a strong emphasis on joint welfare assessments for children and victims.[25] Osinachi’s passing sparked a national conversation about domestic abuse. Her tragedy became a focal point for systemic change as civil society organizations and the media called for greater victim protection and accountability (n 1).
Suggestions / Way forward
To efficiently dismantle the paradox of “staying power”, reformation must surpass the statutory recognition and dissert the structural foundations of endurance.
- Economic empowerment must play a vital role in domestic violence responses. Access to vocational training and employment opportunities would significantly reduce women’s dependence and make safe exits feasible.
- Counselling and trauma-informed training should be an obligation for judges, police and social workers. Judicial and law enforcement officers must be made aware of the long-term effects and emotional dimensions of abuse.
- Child-sensitive protection orders must be a part of custody reforms in order to ensure that safety and well-being are prioritised over the conventional ideas of unity and harmony among the family.
- Nigeria must implement community shelters and safe houses across all states backed by adequate funding and coordination between the Ministry of Women Affairs, NGOs, and faith-based organisations in order to show victims that they are not alone. [26]
- Public education campaigns are necessary to destigmatize divorce and counter-attack the notion that leaving an abusive marriage is immoral or anti-cultural. Collaboration between government, civil society, and religious bodies can foster this change.
Conclusion
This article has explored the paradox of women remaining in abusive marriage “for the sake of the children”. It shows how such choices are influenced by systemic failures in law, culture and policy, rather than genuine autonomy.
The argument proves that when legal protection is separated from socio-economic support, victims view endurance as their only suitable option. To break this problematic discourse, both the law and society as a whole must evolve and take a stance against the inhumane reality of abuse and violence. Ultimately, true protection for children begins with the safety of their mothers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Akinbuwa v Akinbuwa (2018) LPELR-45304 (CA)
Eze v State (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt 1710) 30
Ogunbiyi v State (2019) LPELR-46488 (CA)
Legislation
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015
Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act, Cap P3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
Books
Adewoye O, The Legal Profession in Nigeria (Longman 1977)
Nwabueze BO, Constitutional Democracy in Africa: Volume 1 (Spectrum Books 2003)
Okonkwo C and Naish P, Criminal Law in Nigeria (2nd edn, Spectrum Books 2000)
Journal Articles
Asein JO, ‘Legal Responses to Domestic Violence in Nigeria: Between Law and Culture’ (2019) 8(2) Nigerian Journal of Family Law and Practice 42
Ebeku KS, ‘Human Rights and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence in Nigeria’ (2021) 10(1) African Journal of Law and Human Rights 67
Online Sources
‘Legal Aid Council of Nigeria’ (Official Website, 2024) https://legalaidcouncil.gov.ng accessed 10 October 2025
‘Domestic Violence: Understanding the VAPP Act’ (Women at Risk International Foundation, 2023) https://warifng.org/domestic-violence-understanding-the-vapp-act/ accessed 10 October 2025
[1] ‘Osinachi Nwachukwu: Nigerian Gospel Singer’s Husband Charged with Homicide’ (BBC News, 20 June 2022) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-61878413 accessed 7 October 2025.
[2] UN General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women’ A/RES/48/104 (20 December 1993) https://undocs.org/A/RES/48/104 accessed 7 October 2025.
[3] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 46.
[4]United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global Study on Homicide: Gender-related killings of women and girls (2019) https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_5.pdf accessed 7 October 2025.
[5] Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap M7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
[6] VAWnet, Understanding Intimate Partner Violence: Causes and Consequences (2020) National Resource Center on Domestic Violence https://vawnet.org/material/understanding-intimate-partner-violence-causes-and-consequences accessed 7 October 2025.
[7] Ministry of Women and Child Development (India), Study on the Nature and Prevalence of Domestic Violence (Government of India, 2022) https://wcd.nic.in/ accessed 7 October 2025.
[8] Home Office (UK), Domestic Abuse Act 2021: Statutory Guidance (UK Government, 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-act-2021-statutory-guidance accessed 7 October 2025.
[9] US Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women: 2023 Annual Report (DOJ, 2023) https://www.justice.gov/ovw accessed 7 October 2025.
[10] UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2019–2020: Families in a Changing World (United Nations, 2019) https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications accessed 7 October 2025.
[11] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 (Nigeria) https://fida.org.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Violence-Against-Persons-Prohibition-Act-2015-1.pdf accessed 7 October 2025.
[12] The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015’ (LawPavilion Blog, 5 April 2016) https://lawpavilion.com/blog/the-violence-against-persons-prohibition-act-2015/ accessed 7 October 2025.
[13] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 34(1).
[14] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13; UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, GA Res 48/104 (20 December 1993); Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015.
[15] Akinbuwa v Akinbuwa (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 661 (CA).
[16] Matrimonial Causes Act Cap M7 LFN 2004, s 71.
[17] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (India).
[18] Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (UK), s 3.
[19] Violence Against Women Act 1994 (US), Pub L 103–322.
[20] Olabisi Akinola, ‘Cultural Barriers to Women’s Rights in Nigeria’ (2019) Nigerian Journal of Family Law 45.
[21] VAWnet, ‘Why Do Mothers Stay? A Global Review’ (2021) https://vawnet.org accessed 7 October 2025; UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2019–2020 (UN Women 2020).
[22] FIDA Nigeria, ‘Implementation Challenges of the VAPP Act’ (2023) https://fida.org.ng accessed 7 October 2025.
[23] UNICEF, ‘The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children’ (2022) https://www.unicef.org accessed 7 October 2025.
[24] FIDA Nigeria, ‘States that Have Domesticated the VAPP Act’ (2024) https://fida.org.ng accessed 7 October 2025.
[25] UN Women, ‘Global Frameworks for Domestic Violence Prevention’ (2023) https://unwomen.org accessed 7 October 2025.
[26] UN Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2019–2020 (UN Women 2020).
