Rape Prosecution in Nigeria: A Critical Examination of Evidentiary Challenges and the Difficulty of Securing Convictions.

By Penniel I Amatari 

Abstract

Rape has existed since time immemorial, and it remains one of the most emotionally charged offense a court can try. It is also one of the offenses most vulnerable to false accusation, which means the law must walk a careful line between punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. This article argues that Nigeria’s difficulty in securing rape convictions is not, for the most part, a problem with the substantive law. Section 357 of the Criminal Code Act, Section 282 of the Penal Code Act, and Section 1 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 all define rape broadly and punish it severely, with the first two prescribing life imprisonment. The real difficulty lies in what the prosecution must prove, and how hard that is to prove in practice. Section 36(5)  of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria As Amended presumes every accused person innocent, and Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 requires the prosecution to prove every single ingredient of the offense beyond reasonable doubt meaning that a case which is strong on three ingredients but weak on a fourth is still, in law, a case that fails. Identification of the accused is a further hurdle, as Akinrinlola v State, ^[1] shows. But the biggest obstacle by far is corroboration: the practice, developed by the courts rather than required by any statute, of insisting on independent supporting evidence before convicting an accused person of rape. This practice is traced through Sambo v State ^[2], Iko v State^[3] and Posu v State ^[4]. Where the complainant is a child, the burden is even heavier, because Section 175 and 209 of the Evidence Act 2011 add a separate competence test on top of the ordinary corroboration requirement. This article compares Nigeria’s position with South Africa, which abolished its own version of this practice; the “cautionary rule”; by statute, under Section 60 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2007. It concludes that the difficulty in securing rape convictions in Nigeria is not necessarily because the law is inadequate, but because of systemic, evidentiary, and societal obstacles that frustrate justice. It closes with recommendations addressed to both problems: the corroboration doctrine itself, and the weak institutions that make it so hard to satisfy.

Keywords: rape, corroboration, evidentiary burden, beyond reasonable doubt, Evidence Act 2011, Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act, identification evidence, child witness, cautionary rule, Nigeria.

I. INTRODUCTION

Rape is one crime that has existed since time immemorial. Every society has had to deal with it, and every legal system has struggled to try it fairly, because rape cases sit at an unusually difficult intersection: they involve serious harm that deserves serious punishment, but they also involve a real risk of false or mistaken accusation. A court trying a rape case must therefore do two things at once ; take the allegation seriously, and still insist on proof. This tension is not a flaw in the system. It is the whole reason the law of evidence matters so much in rape trials, arguably more than in any other type of criminal case.

It is important to start by being clear that Nigerian law does not treat rape lightly. Section 357 of the Criminal Code Act, which applies in the southern states, defines rape as unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl without her consent, or with a consent that has been obtained by force, threats, intimidation, fear of harm, fraud as to the nature of the act, or by a man impersonating a woman’s husband.^[5] Section 282 of the Penal Code Act, which applies in the northern states, defines the offense in a similar way, and adds that a girl under fourteen years of age, or a woman of unsound mind, is treated as incapable of giving valid consent at all, regardless of what she may have said.^[6] Both Codes prescribe the same maximum penalty: imprisonment for life.^[7] More recently, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 has widened the definition further. Section 1 of the Act defines rape in gender neutral terms, and extends it to intentional penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth by any part of the body or by any object, without consent, or where consent has been obtained by force, threat, intimidation, fear of harm, fraud, a substance capable of removing the victim’s will, or the impersonation of a spouse.^[8] A person convicted under the Act still faces life imprisonment as the default sentence, except that an offender under fourteen years of age faces a maximum of fourteen years, and offenders who commit the offense as a group face a minimum of twenty years each.^[9].

If the written law is this strict, why do so few rape prosecutions end in conviction? The answer, this article argues, lies not in the definition of the offense but in what the prosecution must prove, and how difficult that proof turns out to be in real cases. The law has nothing to do with emotions. Section 36(5) of the Constitution presumes every accused person innocent until the state proves otherwise, and it is the state;  not the complainant;  that carries the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This article explains exactly where that burden tends to break down. Part II sets out the ingredients of rape, drawn from the three main statutes and the cases interpreting them. Part III explains the standard of proof and identifies the three points where rape prosecutions most often fail: the rule that every ingredient must be proved separately, the difficulty of proving identification, and the requirement of corroboration. Part IV looks at the special evidentiary rules that apply where the complainant is a child. Part V compares Nigeria’s approach with South Africa’s abolition of its cautionary rule. Part VI considers the strongest arguments against reform, and answers them. Part VII sets out recommendations, and Part VIII concludes.

II. THE STATUTORY INGREDIENTS OF RAPE

A. What the Three Statutes Have in Common

Although Nigeria has three separate statutes dealing with rape, a careful reading of all three shows that they share the same basic ingredients, which the prosecution must prove before an accused person can be convicted. These ingredients are: first, unlawful carnal knowledge of the complainant; second, the absence of her consent, or a consent that was obtained through intimidation, force, or fraud; and third, penetration, however slight, provided it was intentional.

B. The Ingredients as Restated in Posu v State

In Posu v State ^[10], the Supreme Court restated these ingredients in a form that is now used as the standard test in Nigerian rape trials. The prosecution must prove: that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant; that the intercourse took place without her consent, or that any apparent consent was obtained through fraud; that the accused had the necessary guilty mind, known in law as mens rea; and that there was penetration. Each of these four ingredients must be proved separately, and a failure to prove even one of them, as later Parts of this article will show, is usually fatal to the prosecution’s case.

C. Why Proof of Ejaculation Is Not Required

A common misunderstanding, even among some legal practitioners, is that the prosecution must prove that the accused ejaculated. This is not the law. The slightest penetration is enough to constitute rape, and the absence of proof of ejaculation is not a defense. In Ogunbayo v State^[11], the Supreme Court confirmed this clearly, holding that emission is not a necessary requirement of the offense, and that even penetration that is not deep enough to injure the hymen is sufficient to establish carnal knowledge. It is worth being precise about what this rule does and does not do. It lowers the physical threshold for what counts as the act of rape. It does not lower the evidentiary threshold for proving that the act took place at all;  and it is that second, much higher threshold that is the real subject of this article.

III. THE STANDARD OF PROOF AND WHERE PROSECUTIONS ACTUALLY FAIL

A. Every Ingredient Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 places the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution.¹² Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty, but it is the highest standard of proof known to Nigerian law, and it is important to understand exactly how it applies in a rape trial. It does not apply to the case as a whole in some general, averaged out way. It applies to each ingredient of the offense, one by one. This means that a prosecution which proves penetration beyond reasonable doubt, and proves the absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt, but fails to prove the identity of the accused to the same standard, has not proved seventy five percent of a case. In the eyes of the law, it has proved nothing at all, because the one ingredient it failed to prove was enough to sink the whole case. This is one of the most important, and most under appreciated, reasons why rape prosecutions fail so often: it is far easier for the defense to create reasonable doubt around one ingredient than to dismantle an entire, consistent story.

B. The Difficulty of Proving Identification

Identification sounds simple, but in rape cases it is often anything but. Rape frequently happens at night, in the course of a struggle, or is committed by someone the victim did not know beforehand and could not observe clearly. In such cases, a defense lawyer does not need to argue that no rape occurred at all. It is often enough to argue that the prosecution has not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that this particular accused person was the one who committed it. In Akinrinlola v State ^[12], the Supreme Court held that identification evidence must itself meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and it set out the factors courts must consider: the description of the accused that the victim gave to the police shortly after the offense, the opportunity the victim had to actually observe her attacker, and the specific features of the accused that she noticed and reported to the police. Where the prosecution cannot satisfy these requirements, the accused must be discharged, even where the underlying offense clearly took place.

C. Corroboration: The Biggest Obstacle of All

Of all the evidentiary difficulties discussed in this article, corroboration causes the most damage to the prosecution’s case, and it is the central focus of this article.

Corroboration means independent evidence, apart from the complainant’s own testimony, which supports her account and connects the accused to the offense. In Sambo v State^[13], the Supreme Court defined corroborative evidence as evidence that is cogent and compelling, and that is independent of the complainant, and that implicates the accused in the commission of the offense. It is not enough for supporting evidence merely to make the complainant sound more credible in a general way; it must connect the accused directly to the crime.

Here is the important point that students often find confusing. It is not, strictly speaking, a rule of law that a court cannot convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant alone. What the courts have said, again and again, is that it is unsafe to convict without corroboration. This is a practice, not a statutory rule, but in day to day practice the distinction often makes little difference, because courts apply the practice so consistently. In Iko v State[14], the Court held that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot ground a criminal conviction, and confirmed that the search for corroboration, though not compelled by any statute, remains the safe and settled practice of Nigerian courts in rape cases. The Supreme Court went further in Posu v State[15], holding that precedent requires courts to look for corroboration in every rape case, because the justice system must achieve two things at the same time: convict the guilty, and protect the innocent from wrongful conviction. A bare, uncorroborated allegation, the Court held, will usually not be enough to satisfy both of these goals at once.

The type of corroboration the courts trust most is medical evidence, and this is also, unfortunately, the type of evidence that is hardest for many victims to preserve. In Posu v State[16], the Court identified the classic forms of medical corroboration: injury to the complainant’s private parts or other parts of her body consistent with a struggle, and semen stains on her clothing, on the accused’s clothing, or at the scene of the offense. This is where most rape prosecutions in Nigeria are lost. In the traumatic hours after an assault, a complainant will often go first to her family, or to the police, and only later, if at all, to a hospital. By the time she does, the physical evidence the courts most want to see has often already been lost, whether through washing, the passage of time, or simple lack of awareness that it needed to be preserved. Where the complainant is not a virgin, the absence of a fresh tear removes even the most basic physical marker courts have historically relied on. It is not an exaggeration to say that, in practice, one of the single most important factors deciding whether a rape prosecution succeeds is how quickly the complainant reached a hospital after the assault.

Eyewitness testimony is the other recognized form of corroboration, but it is rarely available, and even where available, it is often not enough on its own. Rape is, by its nature, committed in private. Even where a witness saw the accused attacking the complainant, that witness will rarely have been close enough, or well positioned enough, to see the actual act of penetration, which remains the one ingredient the prosecution must independently prove. This difficulty was directly acknowledged in Ogunbayo v State ^[17], where the Court recognized that because rape happens mostly in private, corroboration by eyewitness is correspondingly hard to obtain. Even where a witness can testify to seeing the accused harassing or assaulting the complainant, the harder question is whether that witness was close enough, and positioned well enough, to actually see the act of penetration. The result is a structural gap in the law: the very privacy that makes rape such a violating crime is the same privacy that denies the prosecution the evidence courts expect before they will convict.

IV. THE EVIDENTIARY TREATMENT OF CHILD COMPLAINANTS

A large number of rape and defilement cases in Nigeria involve child victims. As emotionally difficult as these cases are, the law does not relax its evidentiary requirements simply because the victim is a child. If anything, the law adds a further hurdle the prosecution must clear before a child’s evidence can even be received by the court at all.

This additional hurdle has two parts. First, Section 175 of the Evidence Act 2011 asks whether the child is competent to testify in the first place; that is, whether she has enough intellectual capacity to understand the questions asked of her and to answer them rationally.^[18] Second, Section 209 of the Evidence Act governs how a child under fourteen years of age gives her evidence: she is not sworn on oath, and her evidence is received unsworn, but only if the court is satisfied that she has sufficient intelligence to justify receiving her evidence, and that she understands the importance of telling the truth.^[19] In Sambo v State ^[20], the Supreme Court held that it is risky to convict an accused person on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, and this risk does not disappear simply because the child is herself the victim of the offense charged. Before a child’s evidence can even be received, the trial court must satisfy itself that she understands the nature of an oath, understands the consequences of telling a lie, and has enough intelligence to follow the questions put to her. Where these conditions are not met, or where the unsworn evidence of a child under fourteen is not independently corroborated, a conviction cannot safely be based on it.

In practice, this creates a double filter for child complainants: first, a competence test that a frightened or traumatized child may find difficult to pass under the formality of courtroom questioning, and second, the ordinary corroboration requirement discussed in Part III, applied on top of that. Given how often children feature as victims in Nigeria’s reported rape and defilement cases, this combined evidentiary burden is not a small or technical point. It is one of the central reasons convictions are so hard to secure.

V. A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: SOUTH AFRICA AND THE ABOLITION OF THE CAUTIONARY RULE

Nigeria is not alone in having faced this problem, and it is useful to see how another jurisdiction has responded to it. South Africa once had a very similar rule, known as the “cautionary rule“, which required courts to treat the uncorroborated evidence of a sexual offense complainant with special suspicion. This rule was based on the outdated and now widely rejected idea that complainants in sexual offense cases, particularly women, were unusually likely to lie. South African courts began to move away from the rule in 1998, and in 2007 the South African Parliament abolished it completely by statute, through Section 60 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses and Related Matters) Amendment Act, which states clearly that a court may not treat the evidence of a sexual offense complainant with caution simply because of the nature of the offense.^[21] It is important to be clear about what this reform did and did not do. It did not stop courts from considering corroborating evidence where it exists; good trial practice will always value independent support for a witness’s account. What it removed was the automatic assumption, applied only to sexual offenses, that a complainant’s evidence could never be trusted on its own.

This is exactly the assumption Nigerian law has not yet removed. Section 200 of the Evidence Act 2011 already provides, as a general rule, that the evidence of a single credible witness is enough to secure a conviction, unless a specific statutory provision says otherwise,^[22] and no provision of the Evidence Act singles out rape as an offense requiring corroboration. Despite this, Nigerian courts have continued to require corroboration in rape cases as a matter of settled practice, not because any statute demands it, but because generations of judges have followed the same approach. The lesson from South Africa is not that corroboration should never be sought; good advocacy will always welcome supporting evidence where it exists; but that treating rape complainants, as a category, as less trustworthy than every other kind of witness is a policy choice, not a legal necessity, and it is a choice other common law jurisdictions have already decided they can no longer justify. South Africa’s experience also teaches a second lesson: legislation on its own was not enough. The statutory abolition of the cautionary rule was supported by real investment in institutions, including centers where police, doctors, and prosecutors worked together to support sexual offense complainants. Without that investment, the change in the law alone would have achieved far less. Legal reform and institutional reform need to happen together.

VI. COUNTERARGUMENTS

Two objections to the argument in this article deserve to be taken seriously and answered directly. The first is that the corroboration practice, whatever its history, still serves a useful purpose. An allegation of rape can be relatively easy to make, and, in the absence of independent evidence, relatively difficult for an innocent accused person to disprove. Given that a rape conviction carries a sentence of life imprisonment, some extra caution before convicting might seem reasonable.

This objection is not unreasonable on its face, but it does not survive closer examination. The protection it is trying to achieve already exists, in full, through the presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the Constitution, and the requirement under Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act that every ingredient of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Adding a rape specific corroboration requirement on top of these existing protections creates an extra layer of protection that is not given to other equally serious offenses, such as murder or armed robbery, where the credible evidence of a single witness can be enough to convict. There is no good reason to treat rape complainants as less reliable than witnesses in other serious criminal cases, and the historical origin of the cautionary approach; based, as the South African material shows, on outdated and discredited assumptions about complainants lying; does not hold up as a considered modern policy.

The second objection carries more weight: reforming the corroboration rule alone will achieve little if the underlying evidence problems are not also fixed, since no change in legal doctrine can create medical evidence that was never collected, or eyewitnesses who never existed. This objection is largely correct, which is exactly why this article does not present legal reform as a complete solution by itself. Reforming the corroboration doctrine helps in cases where credible testimony exists but corroboration does not. Reforming the institutions helps explain, and eventually reduce, why corroborating evidence is so often missing in the first place. Neither type of reform can do the other’s job. Both are necessary.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

First, victims of rape should, wherever possible, go to a hospital or an accredited medical facility as soon as possible after an assault. Nigerian courts continue to place heavy weight on prompt medical evidence, and this remains the single most important factor in whether a prosecution succeeds, at least until the corroboration doctrine itself is reformed. This recommendation is not a criticism of victims. There are many understandable reasons why a person may not go straight to a hospital after a traumatic assault. It is simply a recognition of how the present law actually works in practice.

Second, the corroboration practice discussed throughout this article should be reviewed. Following South Africa’s example, it should be replaced with a rule that allows conviction on the credible, unshaken testimony of the complainant alone, without an automatic presumption that her evidence is unreliable simply because the charge is rape, while still leaving courts free to consider corroborating evidence where it exists, as they would in any other type of criminal case. This change could come either through an amendment to the Evidence Act stating the position clearly, similar to South Africa’s Section 60, or through a clear Supreme Court decision that finally overrules the corroboration practice as a matter of settled precedent rather than statutory requirement.

Third, Nigeria needs to invest seriously in forensic infrastructure. The lack of dedicated police forensic and DNA testing capacity, and the resulting reliance on eyewitness testimony and confessional statements as the main sources of proof, is a well documented weakness in the Nigerian criminal justice system generally, and it is especially damaging in rape cases. Establishing forensic laboratories with realistic turnaround times, and equipping police stations with basic facilities such as private examination rooms, transport to designated hospitals, and funded rape kits, would materially improve the prosecution’s ability to meet the corroboration standard, even before that standard itself is reformed.

Fourth, rape trials need to move faster. Dedicated or fast tracked sexual offenses courts, similar to those already piloted in some Nigerian states, would help reduce the years long delays that currently discourage complainants from continuing with a prosecution, and that allow evidence and witnesses’ memories to fade before a case is concluded.

Fifth, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 should be adopted by the remaining Nigerian states that have not yet domesticated it, and its existing provisions; including the sex offender register and the power to award compensation to victims; should be applied more consistently in the states where it already applies. This would ensure that the Act’s broader definition of rape and its calibrated minimum sentences become the standard framework used in prosecutions across the whole country, rather than remaining available only in a limited number of states.

VIII. CONCLUSION

The difficulty in securing rape convictions in Nigeria is not necessarily because the law is inadequate, but because of systemic, evidentiary, and societal obstacles that frustrate justice. The Criminal Code, the Penal Code, and the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act all define rape broadly and punish it severely, and the courts, from Posu v State  ^[23] to Ogunbayo v State  ^[24], have consistently refused to allow technical arguments, such as the absence of proof of ejaculation, to weaken the substantive scope of the offense. The real difficulty lies in the gap between what the law says and what the courtroom demands before it will act on what the law says. That gap is made up of several parts: a standard of proof that requires every ingredient of the offense to be proved separately, with no room to average a strong ingredient against a weak one; an identification requirement that Akinrinola v State[25] holds to the same demanding standard as any other criminal charge; a corroboration practice that has no clear basis in statute, but that has become deeply entrenched through years of judicial practice, and that closely resembles a cautionary rule other jurisdictions have already abolished; an additional evidentiary burden placed on child complainants under Sections 175 and 209 of the Evidence Act; and, underlying all of this, the simple fact that the medical and eyewitness evidence courts expect is, in most cases, never actually available. None of this will change on its own. It will take real doctrinal courage to finally set aside a corroboration practice the law never actually required, and it will take sustained investment in institutions;  in forensic capacity, in medical response, in the speed of trials; to supply the kind of evidence the law, even once reformed, will still expect to see. Until both of these things happen together, Nigeria will continue to have some of the strictest rape laws on paper, and some of the weakest conviction rates in practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Table of Cases

Akinrinlola v State (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 73;

Habibu Musa v State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 214

Iko v State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 221

Ogunbayo v State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 157

Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 393

Sambo v State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 399

Table of Statutes

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36

Criminal Code Act, ss 357–361

Penal Code Act, ss 282–285

Evidence Act 2011, ss 138(1), 175, 200, 209

Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 1

Comparative Sources

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2007 (South Africa), s 60

S v Jackson 1998 (1) SACR 470 (A)

S v M 1999 (2) SACR 548 (SCA)

[1] Akinrinlola v State (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 73;

[2] Sambo v State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 399.

[3] Iko v State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 221.

[4] Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 393.

[5] Criminal Code Act, s 357.

[6] Penal Code Act, s 282(1)(a)–(e).

[7] Criminal Code Act, s 358; Penal Code Act, s 283.

[8] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 1(1).

[9] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, s 1(2)(a)–(c).

[10] Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 393.

[11] Ogunbayo v State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 157, per Niki Tobi JSC. See also Habibu Musa v State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 214, applying the same principle to the requirement of corroboration.

[12] Akinrinlola v State (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 73.

[13] Sambo v State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 399.

[14] Iko v State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 221

[15] Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 393

[16] Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 393

[17] Ogunbayo v State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 157, per Niki Tobi JSC, who observed that because rape is, by its nature, committed in private, it is correspondingly difficult to secure corroboration from the evidence of an eyewitness as to the act of penetration itself.

[18] Evidence Act 2011, s 175.

[19] Evidence Act 2011, s 209(1), (3).

[20] Sambo v State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 300) 399.

[21] Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2007 (South Africa), s 60; see also S v Jackson 1998 (1) SACR 470 (A) and S v M 1999 (2) SACR 548 (SCA).

[22] Evidence Act 2011, s 200.

[23] Posu v State (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 393.

[24] Ogunbayo v State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 157.

[25] Akinrinlola v State (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 73

About the Author

PENNIEL I. AMATARI is a 300-level law student at the Faculty of Law, Niger Delta University, with keen interests in constitutional and human rights law, criminal law, tort law, litigation, and corporate-commercial practice.

He has participated in over six moot court competitions and was recognised as the Emerging Best Advocate at the 2026 South-South Moot Competition.

Beyond advocacy, he has held over twelve leadership positions across student organisations, the Faculty of Law, Niger Delta University, and the Law Students’ Association of Nigeria (LAWSAN).

He has also completed internships at The Heaven360 Foundation, Kemasude Wodu, SAN & Co., and Platinum & Taylor Hill LP.

He has published scholarly articles in several legal journals, including the LearningTheLaw Journal.

He is passionate about legal research and writing, and contributes to contemporary legal discourse on constitutional governance, public law, and law reform.

****************************************************************************************

This work is published under the free legal awareness project of Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). The writer was not paid or charged any publishing fee. You too can support the legal awareness projects and programs of Sabi Law Foundation by donating to us. Donate here and get our unique appreciation certificate or memento.

DISCLAIMER:

This publication is not a piece of legal advice. The opinion expressed in this publication is that of the author(s) and not necessarily the opinion of our organisation, staff and partners.

PROJECTS: 

🛒 Take short courses, get samples/precedents and learn your rights at www.SabiLaw.org

🎯 Publish your legal articles for FREE by sending to: [email protected]

🎁 Receive our free Daily Law Tips & other publications via our website and social media accounts or join our free whatsapp group: Daily Law Tips Group 5

KEEP IN TOUCH:

Get updates on all the free legal awareness projects of Sabi Law (#SabiLaw) and its partners, via:

YouTube: SabiLaw

Twitter: @Sabi_Law

Facebook page: SabiLaw

Instagram: @SabiLaw.org_

WhatsApp Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group 5

Telegram Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group

Facebook group: SabiLaw

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.SabiLaw.org

ABOUT US & OUR PARTNERS:

This publication is the initiative of the Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). Sabi Law Foundation is a Not-For-Profit and Non-Governmental Legal Awareness Organization based in Nigeria. It is the first of its kind and has been promoting free legal awareness since 2010.

DONATION & SPONSORSHIP:

As a registered not-for-profit and non-governmental organisation, Sabi Law Foundation relies on donations and sponsorships to promote free legal awareness across Nigeria and the world. With a vast followership across the globe, your donations will assist us to increase legal awareness, improve access to justice, reduce common legal disputes and crimes in Nigeria. Make your donations to us here  or contact us for sponsorship and partnership, via: [email protected] or +234 903 913 1200.

**********************************************************************************