Why Nigeria Has Not Ratified the Maputo Protocol on Women’s Rights
Nigeria’s position on the Maputo Protocol reflects a complicated mix of constitutional procedure, political hesitation, religious and cultural sensitivities, and concerns about how regional obligations would operate within the country’s federal system. The protocol, formally known as the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, was adopted by the African Union in 2003 and entered into force in 2005.
Nigeria signed the instrument but has not completed ratification. That distinction matters. Signing signals political support and an intention to consider becoming legally bound, while ratification confirms the state’s consent to be bound by the treaty. In Nigeria, treaty approval also has a domestic constitutional dimension because Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution requires treaties to be enacted into law by the National Assembly before they can have force within the country.
The delay is therefore not caused by a single decision or one uniform national position. It involves lawmakers, ministries, state governments, traditional institutions, religious bodies, civil society groups, and communities with differing views about gender equality, family law, reproductive health, and the role of international agreements in domestic policy.
The Legal Status Behind The Delay
Nigeria has signed several international and regional agreements concerning women’s rights, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Yet signing or even ratifying an international convention does not automatically make its provisions enforceable in Nigerian courts. Under the Constitution, the National Assembly must domesticate a treaty before it becomes part of Nigerian law.
The Maputo Protocol is an African Union instrument that supplements the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Its provisions address discrimination, violence against women, harmful practices, political participation, economic rights, property and inheritance, marriage, reproductive health, and protection during armed conflict. Ratification would create a stronger regional commitment, but domestic implementation would still require laws, policies, funding, institutions, and judicial interpretation.
This constitutional requirement has contributed to delays beyond the Maputo Protocol. Treaties may receive executive approval or be signed by representatives of the government, then remain inactive because the legislative process is slow, politically sensitive, or crowded out by other national priorities. The gap between international commitments and enforceable domestic law remains a recurring issue in Nigeria’s human rights framework.
What The Protocol Requires
Several provisions have attracted particular attention in Nigeria. The protocol requires states to eliminate harmful practices, protect women from violence, promote equality in marriage and divorce, safeguard property and inheritance rights, and improve women’s participation in public and political life. It also sets the minimum age of marriage at 18 and recognises women’s rights to reproductive health services.
Article 14, which concerns reproductive health and permits abortion in specific circumstances, has often become the centre of public debate. The provision refers to cases involving sexual assault, rape, incest, serious threats to the life or physical health of the mother, and serious foetal abnormalities. Supporters view it as a public health and women’s rights safeguard, while opponents fear it could weaken Nigeria’s existing restrictions on abortion.
That debate has sometimes reduced the entire instrument to abortion, even though most of the protocol concerns broader issues. Child marriage, female genital mutilation, domestic violence, unequal inheritance, political exclusion, and economic discrimination are also central to the treaty. A narrow focus on one provision has made a detailed and evidence-based national conversation more difficult.
Federalism, Religion And Customary Law
Nigeria’s legal diversity creates another layer of difficulty. The country has a federal system with 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, alongside statutory, customary, and Islamic legal traditions. Although the National Assembly can domesticate a treaty, many areas affected by the protocol involve family relations, local administration, criminal justice, education, health, and social welfare, where state-level institutions play a major role.
In northern states, Sharia-based personal law operates alongside constitutional provisions and other legal systems. In many communities across the country, customary practices influence marriage, land ownership, inheritance, widowhood, and family responsibilities. Some of these practices are evolving, while others conflict with the protocol’s equality standards. Policymakers have been cautious about endorsing language that could be interpreted as overriding religious or customary authority without broad consultation.
The constitutional rights framework already prohibits discrimination and protects personal liberty, dignity, and equality before the law. However, enforcement is uneven, and conflicts between formal rights and customary practice can be difficult to resolve. Ratifying Maputo would not erase those legal systems, but it could increase pressure on government agencies and courts to review rules and practices that discriminate against women.
Nigeria’s wider development priorities also shape the legislative environment. Public debate often competes with discussions about security, inflation, jobs, education, and public spending, including scrutiny of budget allocation priorities. Gender-related legislation may be recognised as important but still struggle to secure sustained political attention.
| Issue | What The Maputo Protocol Provides | Why It Is Sensitive In Nigeria |
|---|---|---|
| Marriage | Protects consent and sets 18 as the minimum age | Conflicts with some customary and religious practices |
| Reproductive health | Recognises access to reproductive health and limited grounds for abortion | Raises strong religious, medical, and moral objections |
| Harmful practices | Requires action against female genital mutilation and other abuse | Enforcement varies across regions and communities |
| Property and inheritance | Supports women’s ownership, access, and inheritance rights | Customary rules may disadvantage widows and daughters |
| Political participation | Calls for stronger representation and equality in public life | Party structures and patronage systems remain male-dominated |
| Violence against women | Requires prevention, punishment, and support for survivors | Police, courts, shelters, and funding remain inadequate |
Political And Social Resistance
Ratification requires political leaders to accept potential controversy. Some lawmakers and religious organisations have expressed concern that the protocol could introduce foreign values or undermine national sovereignty. Others argue that Nigeria helped shape African human rights standards and should accept a regional instrument designed for the continent’s own social and legal realities.
The disagreement is partly about language. Terms such as reproductive rights, sexual health, gender equality, and harmful practices can carry different meanings across communities. Without clear public education, opponents may assume the protocol requires unrestricted abortion, abolishes religious family law, or imposes identical social arrangements on every Nigerian community. Supporters, in turn, may see objections as attempts to preserve discrimination.
Civil society organisations have repeatedly urged the government to ratify the protocol and strengthen laws addressing violence against women, child marriage, sexual abuse, and economic exclusion. Women’s rights advocates contend that Nigeria’s existing legal framework has not sufficiently protected women, especially in rural communities and conflict-affected areas. They also argue that regional oversight could encourage stronger accountability.
Political caution has therefore become a substitute for decisive policy. Governments may support women’s rights in principle while avoiding an instrument that could trigger opposition in the National Assembly, churches, mosques, traditional institutions, or state governments. The result is a long period of official interest without a completed ratification process.
Implementation Would Be The Harder Test
Ratification alone would not end discrimination or violence. Nigeria would need to review conflicting legislation, strengthen law enforcement, improve access to courts, fund shelters and medical services, and collect reliable data on abuse and inequality. It would also need to train judges, police officers, health workers, teachers, and local officials on the treaty’s requirements.
The country already has important legal tools, including the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act and constitutional protections. However, the application of those laws varies considerably. The VAPP Act was initially enacted at the federal level, and its operation has depended heavily on state adoption and implementation. This illustrates the practical challenge of converting national commitments into protection that reaches communities.
Social conditions also matter. Women may hesitate to report violence because of stigma, financial dependence, fear of retaliation, or distrust of authorities. Courts can be slow, medical care can be expensive, and support services are unevenly distributed. A treaty would provide a framework for reform, but it would not substitute for budgets, institutions, political will, or community engagement.
There is also a question of reporting and accountability. Ratifying states must periodically report on progress through African human rights mechanisms. That process can expose shortcomings, but it can also help governments measure reforms and compare outcomes with other countries. For Nigeria, regional scrutiny could become an incentive to address gaps that domestic debate has left unresolved.
A Practical Path To Ratification
A credible process would begin with a transparent review led by the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Women Affairs, the National Assembly, state governments, and independent legal experts. The review should identify provisions that require new legislation, explain how they relate to the Constitution, and clarify the limits of the reproductive health provisions.
Public consultation would be essential. Discussions should include religious and traditional leaders, women’s organisations, medical professionals, young people, persons with disabilities, survivors of violence, and representatives from all regions. A careful explanation of the protocol could separate genuine legal questions from claims based on misunderstanding.
The government could also proceed in stages by linking ratification to a domestic implementation plan. Such a plan should establish responsibilities, timelines, funding requirements, and indicators for reducing violence, child marriage, discrimination, and unequal access to property and healthcare. The National Assembly would then have a clearer basis for debate than a treaty presented without an enforcement strategy.
Key steps should include:
- Publishing the government’s legal review and ratification position.
- Holding regional hearings before the treaty is presented for legislative approval.
- Clarifying the protocol’s reproductive health provisions through official legal and medical guidance.
- Aligning federal and state laws on violence, marriage, inheritance, and harmful practices.
- Providing annual public reports on progress, funding, and implementation.
Accountability Beyond Ratification
The debate should not treat ratification as a symbolic achievement detached from everyday realities. Nigerian women continue to face barriers in education, employment, land ownership, political participation, healthcare, and access to justice. The value of the Maputo Protocol would depend on whether it helps remove those barriers.
It is also important to recognise progress where it exists. Nigerian courts, lawmakers, civil society groups, health professionals, and community organisations have advanced reforms in several areas. State-level action against violence and child marriage, public campaigns against harmful practices, and increased attention to women’s representation show that change is possible, even when national policy remains uneven.
A balanced national conversation should therefore ask two questions at once: what legal obligations would ratification create, and what protections do Nigerian women already need regardless of treaty status? The answers can guide a process based on constitutional order, African regional commitments, religious freedom, public health, and equal citizenship.
Nigeria’s failure to ratify the Maputo Protocol is best understood as an unfinished political and legal process rather than a rejection of every principle in the instrument. Completing that process would require honest debate, legislative courage, and a practical plan for enforcement. Readers can follow ongoing national policy, governance, and accountability reporting through National Weekender as the conversation develops.