Deborah Akinyosoye
Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that the Federal Government, the 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory have a legal obligation to provide free, compulsory, and universal basic education for every Nigerian child of primary and junior secondary school age.
The judgment was delivered on October 9, 2025, in a suit filed by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) and Hauwa Mustapha, who sued for themselves and on behalf of the Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond.
The Federal Government, the states, and the FCT were listed as respondents.
In the certified true copy of the judgment obtained by The PUNCH, Justice Osiagor held that, by virtue of Section 11(2) of the Universal Basic Education Act, the respondents carry a binding statutory duty to provide free and compulsory basic education within their territories.
“Any state that elects to participate must comply strictly with Section 11(2) by contributing 50 per cent counterpart funds before drawing from the Universal Basic Education Fund,” the judge said.
He added that failure to access the federal block grant “does not per se amount to illegality,” describing Section 11(2) as directory and conditional rather than mandatory.
The court also addressed whether the applicants possessed locus standi to bring the suit.
Justice Osiagor adopted a liberal approach, holding that public interest litigation involving fundamental social rights did not require strict proof of personal injury.
“The applicants demonstrated a genuine concern for the enforcement of children’s educational rights, supported by evidence of unaccessed federal grants.
“The suit raises constitutional and statutory questions affecting millions of Nigerian children. Accordingly, I hold that the applicants have sufficient interest and thus possess locus standi,” he added.
On the enforceability of the right to free, compulsory, and universal basic education, the court rejected the respondents’ argument that the right was non-justiciable under Chapter II of the Constitution.
Justice Osiagor held that the enactment of the UBE Act elevated the right from a mere directive principle to a statutory entitlement enforceable against the government.
“Once parliament has enacted a law imposing obligations, those obligations become enforceable,” he stated, citing Indian jurisprudence and the reasoning behind Nigeria’s constitutional drafting process.
The court concluded that Sections 2(1) and 11(2) of the UBE Act impose binding duties on the Federal Government, the states, and the FCT to guarantee free and compulsory basic education for Nigerian children.
However, regarding whether the refusal or failure of states to pay 50 per cent counterpart funding and access the N68bn Universal Basic Education Fund amounts to illegality, the court held that the law did not criminalise such refusal.
Justice Osiagor ruled that while states were obligated to provide basic education, they could not be compelled to access the matching grants.
He resolved the first and second issues in favour of the applicants but held on the third issue that failure to draw from the fund was not unlawful.