Jungle justice, also known as mob justice, refers to the extrajudicial punishment of individuals suspected of crimes, often through public lynching or killings without lawful trial. In Nigeria, this practice has become a persistent plague within the justice system, reflecting both the failure of law enforcement agencies and the erosion of public trust in formal legal institutions. It violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, including the rights to life, fair hearing, and the dignity of the human person. Jungle justice also poses a significant threat to the rule of law. This article examines the root causes and implications of jungle justice and argues that it directly undermines the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights in Nigeria. It concludes with practical recommendations for institutional reform, enhanced public education, and strengthened mechanisms for upholding fundamental rights.

There are justifications put forward for offences such as murder, theft, assault or robbery, however, the offence of rape stands apart. Black’s Law Dictionary describes rape as “the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and against her will.” This definition reflects an older legal tradition, however it opens the way for examining how Nigerian law now understands rape and how consent is interpreted. Rape remains one of the most sensitive subjects in Nigeria, as it shapes public debate, legal reforms and social attitudes. The question of what the law considers rape, and how consent is recognised or denied, forms the centre of this discussion. This article sets out to explain these issues in clear terms. It introduces the legal meaning of rape under Nigerian statutes, explores the idea of consent, and explains the circumstances that may remove or weaken the possibility of free agreement. Each part flows into the next to show how the law constructs the offence and what this means for victims, offenders and the justice system.

Consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex is criminalised in Nigeria. This stems from prevailing socio-cultural and religious beliefs that portray same-sex sexual relationships as unnatural, un- African, and morally reprehensible. Religious people would go further to regard it as demonic. It is on this basis that the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act (SSMPA) 2013, which criminalises various forms of same- sex unions and public display of same-sex amorous relationships, was enacted by the Nigerian government. This legislation was birthed notwithstanding that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the fundamental rights of all citizens, irrespective of one’s sexual orientation. These rights include the right to life, freedom from discrimination, right to personal liberty, right to freedom of assembly and association, right to fair hearing, and right to privacy. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology to analyse the constitutionality of the SSMPA with regards to its alignment or otherwise with the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly the right to privacy, right to freedom of assembly and association, and right to freedom from discrimination. The study contributes to the scholarly debate on LGBTQ+ rights and argues for the protection of the fundamental rights of every individual, regardless of gender identity and sexual oreintation.

For long there has been the idea that man has free will and that he exercises this free will to make his choices. Our criminal law systems are mostly designed in a way that deals with a freely choosing person. However, there are now findings that shows that this freewill a person is assumed to have and exercise may not be as full and free as we thought. This has laid to some arguing for a more deterministic view to be included in our system which will lead to a more scientific and neutral view of those that commit crimes and one that doesn’t attach moral values. This article will be discussing the view point of determinism and how that can shape our criminal punishment system.

Oftentimes, and even more so in recent times, registered business names tend to coincide or clash withregistered trademarks, blurring the line between corporate identity and proprietary rights. While theCompanies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 governs the registration of business names, the Trade MarksAct, 1967 protects distinctiveness in trade. Yet, the lack of a harmonised legal framework has allowedoverlapping registrations flourish. Adopting a doctrinal legal research methodology, this articleexplores the legal and commercial implications of the co-existence of business names and trademarksunder Nigerian law, drawing insights from recent judicial decisions. It finds that the “first-in-time”regimes adopted by both the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Trademarks Registry play apivotal role in determining which gives way, the business name or the trademark. It also finds thatalthough courts have, over time, lent preponderance to trademarks over and above business names,statutory provisions and the doctrines of passing off and prior use constitute lacunas for businessnames. Finally, it advocates practical reforms and provides actionable recommendations for businessowners to navigate the existing landscape.