Maintaining a Constitutional Balance Between Individual Rights Protection and National Security in the War Against Terrorism in Nigeria: An Appraisal

Abstract

National security and counter-terrorism are often used by governments to justify violation of individual rights, creating tension between state security and human rights protection in Nigeria. This article examined how these seemingly conflicting duties can be balanced. It raised key questions: Should individual rights be subject to national security? Who determines the legitimacy of security measures? How have the United States and Britain reconciled these concerns in their counter-terrorism efforts? Adapting doctrinal research method, the paper relied on primary and secondary legal sources, combining comparative analysis of U.S. and British case law. It finds that the political question doctrine—which places national security beyond judicial scrutiny and subordinates’ individual rights—is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and potentially anarchic. In contrast, the complementary approach grounded in rule of law, aligns with democratic principles and affirms that the ultimate aim of national security is protection of human rights. This paper advocates a balanced framework where courts retain constitutional authority to review national security measures, as provided under Section 45(1)–(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Judicial deference to executive claims of security should not amount to abdication of oversight. Lessons from U.S. Supreme Court and the UK House of Lords demonstrate a willingness to check executive power. This paper recommended a paradigm shift: cautious application of security measures, alignment with international human rights obligations, and adoption of the UN’s human security framework, strengthened judicial activism, an effective National Human Rights Commission, and active civil society engagement to prevent abuses

Keywords

References