http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/88 2026-04-06T06:12:15Z 2026-04-06T06:12:15Z ONU, Kingsley Osinachi Nnanna http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2097 2024-04-25T16:35:46Z 2023-03-01T00:00:00Z

HUMAN RIGHT- BASED APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION IN NIGERIA ONU, Kingsley Osinachi Nnanna Climate Change (CC) has significant devastating effects on humans and their environment. However, anecdotal evidence has shown that climate change mitigation (CCM) measures threaten citizen’s human rights globally. Previous studies on CC have focused largely on the Human Right Implications (HRIs) of CCM measures under the Kyoto Protocol, 1997 with less emphasis on the extant international legal regime, the Paris Climate Agreement, 2015. This study, therefore, examined national laws and Nigeria's obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement 2015, with a view to determining the HRIs of their CCM measures. The Sociological Theory provided the framework, while the mixed methods of doctrinal and survey designs were adopted. Adamawa, Lagos, Kogi, Ebonyi, Delta and Sokoto states with the presence of CCM projects were purposively selected. Data were collected using primary and secondary sources. Primary sources included the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; CC Act 2021; the Paris Climate Agreement 2015; Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of Nigeria and that of Norway under the Paris Agreement; African Charter on Human and People’s Right Act, 1983 (African Charter); and case laws. Secondary data included legal texts, journal articles and newspapers. A validated questionnaire on human right-based approach to climate mitigation in Nigeria was randomly administered among civil servants (97), entrepreneurs (123), farmers (58), artisans (43) university lecturers (52) and students (127) across the six states. Key informant interviews were held with staff of the Federal Ministry of Environment (1), Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources (1), National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (1) and National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (1). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were content analysed. Majority of the respondents (89.8%) were aware of (CC). The severe environmental hazards associated with CC included traffic/congestion (87.6%), air pollution (79.4%), overpopulation (68.4%), river/sea pollution (58.9%), and flooding (50.8%). However, there was low awareness about NDC (4.2%) and its implementation action plans (4.8%). There was also low knowledge of HRIs of CCM measures (13.0%). The CCM measures did not protect rights to health (49.9%), shelter (42.1%), life (51.0%), property (40.7%), development (44.3%), food (40.6%), inequalities (45.4%), participatory and consultative rights (19.8%) and vulnerable minority (48.4%). There was no right-based legal framework to mitigate the effects of climate change. The implementation of the NDC has provoked some unintended violation of both substantive and procedural human rights, such as access to information, participation and access to justice. Victims of human rights violation induced by CCM measures relied on Article 24 of the African Charter, which prioritises development over environmental protection, to seek redress in court. Public participation and human rights were not fully embedded in the NDC and its sectorial Implementation Action Plans in Nigeria, compared to Norway that had mainstreamed human rights in her revised NDC and climate change mitigation action plans. Climate change mitigation laws and commitments in Nigeria gloss over human rights implications. Therefore, Nigeria should revise its nationally determined contribution and promote a climate change mitigation that supports human rights and public participation.

2023-03-01T00:00:00Z AJAYI, Oluwatobiloba Ifedolapo http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2095 2024-04-25T16:25:14Z 2023-08-01T00:00:00Z

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN NIGERIA AJAYI, Oluwatobiloba Ifedolapo Industrial disputes between workers’ trade union and employers on issues of conditions of work are a recurrent problem in Nigeria. Of particular interest are disputes between the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), leading to recurring faceoff between both parties. A viable legal framework on collective bargaining is essential in protecting interests of groups that may interact in a relative power context. Previous studies on industrial disputes in public universities have focused more on processes of collective bargaining than on its legal framework. This study was, therefore, designed to examine the legal framework for industrial disputes and collective bargaining between ASUU and FGN, with a view to establishing their employer-employee relations. The Sociological Jurisprudence and Pluralist theories served as the framework. Doctrinal and qualitative methods were adopted. Primary data included the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999; Nigeria’s Labour Act,1974; Trade Disputes Act, 2004 (TDA); Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2005 (TUA); National Industrial Court Act, 2006; Ghana’s Labour Act, 2003; United Kingdom’s Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act,1992; International Labour Organisation’s Conventions and Recommendations on Collective Bargaining; and case law. Secondary data included legal texts, articles and reports. Key informant interviews were conducted with 30 purposively selected stakeholders: University of Ibadan (executive-2, member-4), Olusegun Agagu University of Science and Technology (executive-2, member-3), Nnamdi Azikiwe University (member-5), Ahmadu Bello University (member-2) and University of Abuja (member-2); two National Universities Commission officials, four Principal University Management staff; two Senior officials of Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment and, two Senior officials of Federal Ministry of Education. Data were subjected to jurisprudential and content analyses. The legal framework makes inadequate provisions for collective bargaining and enforcement of collective agreement in Nigeria. Section 40 of the Constitution recognises the right to form or belong to a trade union to protect workers’ interests. Although Nigeria’s Labour Act contains provisions on what collective bargaining and agreement entail, nonetheless gives allowance for non-usage, it states no penalty for non-compliance with their processes where utilised. The TDA stipulates processes for disputes settlement, penalty for defaulting is inconsequential and not at par with global industrial realities. Section 16, TDA provides for interpretation of collective agreement, subject to Court’s decision and is considered final and conclusive. Inadequate fiscal support and research funds for public universities, imposition of Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System as the payment platform for public universities’ academics were unsuitable for the university system and should be jettisoned. The process of collective bargaining between FGN and ASUU had lost its usefulness due to FGN’s constant call for re-negotiation of settled matters.The FGN claimed to have signed past agreements under duress and considered ASUU unrealistic in its demands. Although a legal framework exists for collective bargaining, their provisions are however inadequate in curbing industrial disputes between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Academic Staff Union of Universities; tilting towards the Government’s interest. Extant laws regulating collective bargaining and agreements should be reviewed to make them binding and enforceable.

2023-08-01T00:00:00Z ADEWUMI, AFOLASADE ABIDEMI http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/152 2019-01-04T14:54:41Z 2015-08-26T00:00:00Z

RETURN AND RESTITUTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN AFRICAN STATES UNDER THE 1970 UNESCO AND 1995 UNIDROIT CONVENTIONS ADEWUMI, AFOLASADE ABIDEMI ABSTRACT Cultural property, which is the pillar of civilisation and peoples’ identities, has been displaced through colonisation, plunder and massive theft; causing irreplaceable loss of valuable information on mankind. Return and restitution of cultural property is achievable under the 1970 United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation Convention (UNESCO Convention) and the 1995 International Institute for the Unification of Private Law Convention (UNIDROIT Convention). However, the action steps African states need to take to derive maximum benefits from these Conventions have not attracted much scholarly attention. This study, therefore, examined the return and restitution of cultural property in some African states, under the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions, with a view to determining their ratification rates, domestication and implementation. The factors hindering the efficacy of both Conventions in selected African states were also investigated. The study adopted jurisprudential theories of natural law, historicism and sociological school and applied legal research methodology. Primary data used were the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions, Constitutions of randomly selected five African states with provisions protecting cultural heritage, cultural heritage legislations of 27 African states and 38 other international instruments. Key informant interviews were conducted with the legal officers involved in the drafting of the UNIDROIT Convention at UNIDROIT secretariat in Rome and heritage law practitioners and scholars at the Art Law Centre, University of Geneva. In-depth interviews were also conducted with politicians , lawyers, judges and members of the public in Ibadan metropolis. Secondary data consulted included legal texts on cultural property and policy documents. Data were subjected to interpretive and comparative analyses. As at December 2014, only 70.4% and 3.7% of the selected African states had ratified the UNESCO and the UNIDROIT Conventions respectively. None of the States had any legislation specifically aimed at domesticating the provisions of both Conventions. Largely, the provisions of both Conventions have not been implemented. Although South Africa ratified the UNESCO Convention in 2003, the enactment of The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 predated it. There is no difference in the legislation of states such as Egypt, Nigeria and Zimbabwe that had ratified the UNESCO Convention concerning return and restitution of cultural property and those that had not (Ethiopia, Benin and Kenya). For example, both Kenya’s Antiquities Act 1983 and Egyptian Law 117 of 1983 declared state ownership of cultural property. Lack of awareness among politicians, lawyers and the populace about the benefits derivable from the Conventions, coupled with lack of priority given to the issue of return and restitution of cultural property were some of the factors hindering the efficacy of the Conventions in the African states. Many African states are yet to maximise the benefits derivable from the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions by not ratifying, domesticating and implementing their provisions. The States need to take steps to enact cultural property specific legislations, strengthen their enforcement mechanisms and maintain control over the cultural property within their territories.

2015-08-26T00:00:00Z