This paper investigates the persistent problem of mobbing and self-help in Nigeria, highlighting their detrimental impact on the administration of justice and the overall social order. It explores how these practices, often fueled by a lack of trust in the formal justice system and a desire for immediate retribution, undermine the rule of law and contribute to a climate of lawlessness. The paper analyzes the legal definitions of mobbing and self-help, demonstrating how they violate fundamental principles of due process and create a culture of impunity. It then proposes a multi-faceted approach to address the root causes of these behaviors, emphasizing the need for robust law enforcement, comprehensive public enlightenment campaigns, and community-based initiatives to promote a culture of respect for the law. Ultimately, the paper argues for a justice system that is accessible, equitable, and responsive to the needs of all citizens, fostering a society where mobbing and self-help are no longer tolerated.

The paper critically examines the landmark Nigerian High Court decision in Adunni Adewale v Polance Media Limited & Anor. (2025), which established a crucial domestic precedent for the protection of digital privacy and the emergence of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF). As traditional torts like defamation prove inadequate for an era of perpetual digital memory and data monetisation, the Court adopted a rights-based approach grounded in the Constitution and the Nigerian Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023. The central question was whether a digital publisher’s use of the applicant’s name and photograph in a false and prejudicial context, primarily for traffic generation and advertising revenue, breached her right to privacy and violated the NDPA’s principles of fairness, lawfulness, transparency, and accuracy. The Court answered affirmatively, holding that the publication constituted a “false light” invasion of privacy, awarding ₦20,000,000 in damages, and ordering the deletion or expungement of the content. This paper examines the judgment’s progressive implications alongside its structural tensions. It interrogates the Court’s dismissal of the Respondents’ objection concerning the failure to first lodge a complaint with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), a decision that, while affirming constitutional access, risks undermining the NDPA’s regulatory coherence. It further questions whether the reliance on NDPA standards of “inaccuracy” and “misleading” processing lowered the evidential threshold required in defamation, potentially unsettling doctrinal clarity. Finally, the paper argues that the simple erasure order overlooks the technological complexities of data persistence in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Ultimately, Adewale signifies the constitutionalisation of digital privacy in Nigeria and the urgent need for harmonisation between judicial and regulatory mechanisms.

In the heart of every democracy lies the quiet yet resounding role of the judiciary, a shining hope that ensures elections, the sacred expression of the collective will of the people. Elections are not merely theatrical ceremonies; they are real expressions of fairness and transparency in any country. Across the African continent, from sea to sea, where the scars of colonial legacies and aftershocks of political disorder remain, the judiciary remains a crucial guardian in upholding electoral integrity. This paper examines the critical contribution of the judiciary towards breaking and making those conflicts that arise after elections. It will tap into the daily lives of Kenyan, Malawian, Zimbabwean and Zambian citizens in order to show how the courts have the power both to cement and to destroy the social glue that holds society together. The paper argues for more judicial independence and capacity of the judiciary to enable a robust adjudication process. By traversing African literature, the article comes a long way in arguing that a robust judiciary does not just interpret the law but also feeds the human soul of democracy, peace and dignity for all. Lastly, it calls for reforms that include the ordinary aspirations of Africans, opening electoral justice as an entry point to enduring stability and prosperity for all.

In today’s data-driven world, data breaches can affect hundreds of millions or even billions of people at a time. How can this be prevented or stopped? Well luckily there are laws put in place to regulate and help stop situations like these. The Global AI and Data Protection Regulation 2025 (GAID 2025) is an anticipatory law that safeguards and protects individuals’ rights while mitigating institutional risk. GAID 2025 is a predecessor to, and replaced the the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019. Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIAs) play the role of spotting potential data breaches and security risks before it develops into a serious problem. They are preventive measures that identify, and mitigates or tackles head on privacy risk in data driven activities like; artificial intelligence, chat bots or Language Learning Models ( LLMs) profiling users, powering fintance technology systems, managing sensitive health records, or running massive e-commerce engines, This paper examines the exact situations where GAID 2025 makes DPIAs mandatory, while drawing comparisons with the General Data Protection Act (GDPR), Nigeria’s Data Protection Act 2023, and the African Union’s cybersecurity framework.

“Chat GPT, I intend to put in an entry for an essay contest. So generate a 1700-word essay that addresses the theme ‘Navigating Nigerian Copyright Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Challenges and Proposed Solutions’. Make sure to maintain an academic language and ensure to include accurate references.” If a student inputted the prompt above into ChatGPT’s chat box or that of any generative AI model, the big question is: are they entitled to own the copyright to such generated material? What happens if they made a number of modifications and edits to the generated material, can they then attach their name as the bona fide author of the essay? Or is it the AI itself that owns the work after all? These questions represent a wider array of copyright considerations and debates that have arisen since the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has exploded into the widespread phenomenon it is today. From artworks and poems to novels and paintings, AI has evolved into sophisticated content generators, thanks to constant technological research and unceasing innovation. As AI models are poised to develop even more technical capabilities, industry regulators in the world of Intellectual Property today are, more than ever before, seeking solutions to the challenges that AI has engendered. This essay represents my contribution to the ongoing debate. Particularly, this essay examines the stance of Nigerian copyright law in an age of Artificial Intelligence. I also map out the grey areas where Nigerian legislation is not so clear-cut, while drawing lessons and policy recommendations from other jurisdictions.

In the sub-Saharan African region, referendums tend to be pivotal events in constitutional development. They hold out the prospect of greater human rights protections while revealing fundamental tensions between democratic aspirations of the people and vested power interests of the political elite. This article examines the 2016 constitutional referendum in Zambia which sought to amend the Bill of Rights amidst a contested electoral process. It draws comparative lessons from the referendum of Kenya in 2010 and the referendum of Uganda in 2000 on multiparty democracy. From these cases, it explores how referendums can advance civil liberties such as the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression or backslide against them through low turnout of voters, manipulation by the political elite and inadequate civic education of citizens. The lessons drawn from Zambia underscore the need for an inclusive process to ensure legitimacy of the constitution. This highlights the broader African challenge of balancing direct democracy and the substantive advances of human rights and civil liberties. The analysis suggests that while referendums offer pathways towards empowerment, there success centres on robust institutional safeguards and genuine public participation.