OAL | Leading Law Firm in Nigeria

Blog

  • When Machines Fail: Understanding Liability In AI-Driven Medical Errors Within Nigeria’s Healthcare System

    When Machines Fail: Understanding Liability In AI-Driven Medical Errors Within Nigeria’s Healthcare System

    Introduction

    In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made remarkable inroads into healthcare systems around the world, including Nigeria. From diagnosing illnesses using imaging algorithms to powering chatbot consultations in primary healthcare settings, AI is gradually transforming how patients are assessed, diagnosed, and treated. These technologies offer the potential to enhance speed, accuracy, and accessibility in medical care. Yet, despite these innovations, Nigeria’s healthcare system continues to face significant challenges. Medical errors contribute to approximately 27.9% of patient fatalities, with root causes including inadequate training and staffing (43.8%), poor equipment and infrastructure (21.1%), diagnostic errors (15.6%), medication errors (12.5%), and healthcare-associated infections (23.4%).[1] While AI has the potential to reduce some of these errors, it also introduces new risks.

    The country’s AI healthcare market is projected to grow significantly from $10 million in 2022 to $130 million by 2030, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 46%. A report by PwC revealed that 66.7% of Nigerian healthcare professionals believe AI can enhance human intelligence, while 77% believe machine learning can improve operational efficiency[2]. However, as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare delivery, it raises urgent questions about responsibility and legal liability. What happens when an AI tool misdiagnoses a patient? Who should be held accountable: the doctor, the hospital, or the technology developer? These are not merely theoretical dilemmas; they represent real and pressing legal challenges that must be addressed to ensure patient safety and justice.

    This article explores the legal grey areas surrounding liability for AI-driven medical errors within Nigeria’s healthcare system. It highlights existing legal frameworks, identifies gaps, and offers practical recommendations for reform, aiming to balance technological progress with the protection of patient rights.

    AI’s Growing Role in Nigerian Healthcare

    AI is gradually being integrated into Nigeria’s healthcare system, with applications in radiology, remote patient monitoring, triage chatbots, and electronic health records. Notable examples include LUTH’s AI system for early breast cancer detection[3] and Wellvis, a telemedicine platform improving rural healthcare access[4].

    AI’s appeal lies in its potential to reduce human error, speed up diagnoses, and support overstretched medical staff, especially in a country with fewer than four doctors per 10,000 people.[5]

    However, these benefits come with risks. AI systems depend on large, high-quality data sets, which are often lacking in low-resource settings.[6] Faulty data can lead to misdiagnoses or harmful recommendations, raising not just medical but serious legal and ethical concerns.[7]

    Understanding Medical Liability in Nigeria

    Traditionally, when a patient suffers harm due to a medical error in Nigeria, legal responsibility falls on the human actors involved, most often the doctor, nurse, or hospital. The prevailing legal approach is grounded in the principle of negligence, which refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care that results in injury or death.

    Under Nigeria’s tort law system, a patient (the claimant) must establish three essential elements to succeed in a negligence claim:[8]

    1. That the medical professional owed them a duty of care;
    2. That there was a breach of that duty;
    3. That the breach caused the injury or harm suffered.

    A significant judicial pronouncement on medical negligence can be found in the case of Ogunyinka v. Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH)[9]. In this case, the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered a landmark judgment involving allegations of medical negligence that led to the death of a patient.

    The patient’s family alleged that LUTH staff delayed necessary surgical intervention, failed to provide adequate post-operative care, and committed medication errors. As a result of these failures, the patient eventually died due to complications. The Court of Appeal rejected LUTH’s defense of contributory negligence and overturned the decision of the lower court. It ruled in favour of the plaintiff and held that:

    • LUTH breached its duty of care to the deceased;
    • The hospital’s negligence directly led to the patient’s death;
    • There was a failure to provide timely and adequate care, including delayed surgery and insufficient post-operative management.

    This case illustrates the application of tort principles to medical malpractice and confirms that Nigerian courts are willing to hold healthcare institutions accountable when standards of care are breached.

    Also read: Online Safety & Cybercrimes: Navigating Nigeria’s Cybersecurity Compliance And Safety Laws

    Professional Regulation and Statutory Remedies

    In addition to civil liability, medical practice in Nigeria is regulated by statutory frameworks. The Medical and Dental Practitioners Act LFN 2004 empowers the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) to regulate the conduct of registered professionals[10]. Disciplinary actions can range from suspension to permanent revocation of licenses[11]. In civil courts, damages may be awarded to patients who successfully prove malpractice or negligence. Furthermore, medical negligence entangled with criminal aspects can lead to charges under the Criminal Code Act[12]. In cases where medical negligence results in death, the culpable professional may face charges such as murder or manslaughter, contingent upon the circumstances[13].

    In addition to tort law, other frameworks apply:

    Patients Bill of Rights (PBoR): Developed by the Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), the PBoR affirms patients’ rights to informed consent, privacy, emergency care, and respectful treatment. Launched in 2018, it draws from existing laws and professional ethics, and has been adopted by several hospitals across Nigeria to strengthen patient protection[14].

    Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023: Under the National Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023, data subjects (including patients) have the right not to be subject to decisions made solely through automated processing, unless they provide consent or fall within certain legal exceptions[15]. The Act also mandates safeguards like human oversight and the right to contest such decisions[16]. However, it does not assign liability for harm caused by AI systems. Its focus is on data protection and patient rights, rather than compensation for AI-related medical errors. As such, legal accountability must still be pursued under tort law or other general legal frameworks.

    Overall, these frameworks were designed with human decision-makers in mind. However, as healthcare increasingly relies on AI systems, it becomes unclear how these legal tools should apply when harm arises not from a person but from a machine’s recommendation.

    Where AI Complicates Things

    Artificial Intelligence disrupts the traditional model of assigning liability in healthcare. The core question becomes: Who is responsible when an AI tool causes harm?

    Let’s take a typical scenario: A doctor uses an AI diagnostic tool to assess a patient’s symptoms. The AI suggests a wrong diagnosis, which the doctor follows, leading to injury. Is the doctor negligent for trusting the AI? Is the hospital liable for deploying the technology? Or should liability fall on the developer of the software?

    These are not theoretical concerns. AI is often treated legally as a “product,” which opens the door to product liability claims. But conventional product liability assumes a product is static, a pill, a syringe, or a piece of equipment. AI, however, is dynamic. It evolves based on the data it processes and may change its behaviour over time, which may widen the scope of product liability[17].

    Further, many AI systems operate as “black boxes.” They generate conclusions that even their developers can’t always explain in detail[18]. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for courts to establish fault or trace how an error occurred.

    Doctors may argue that they relied on a professionally certified tool. Hospitals may insist they provided adequate supervision. Developers may argue that the AI tool merely offered recommendations, not decisions. Each party may deny fault, leaving the patient in legal limbo.

    Even if the doctrine of vicarious liability applies, institutions are held liable for the actions of their agents, even if the “agent” in this case is a machine. However, proving causation remains a major hurdle, as plaintiffs must trace harm directly to a machine decision, a task made more difficult by AI’s often opaque “black-box” logic[19].

    This creates a pressing problem: Nigeria’s current legal framework does not clearly assign responsibility for harm caused by AI systems in healthcare. Nigerian law does not yet explicitly address AI liability, nor does it define AI as a legal “person” capable of bearing responsibility. This gap leaves courts and practitioners to navigate uncharted waters using analogies drawn from product liability and corporate negligence doctrines[20]. Courts are therefore compelled to retrofit existing legal principles, such as the duty of care, the standard of a reasonable person, and the foreseeability of harm, to situations involving autonomous or semi-autonomous systems. This uncertainty not only creates obstacles for claimants seeking redress but also complicates risk management and insurance frameworks for healthcare providers and AI developers operating in the Nigerian market.

    Lessons from Other Countries

    As AI use in healthcare grows, countries are taking steps to address legal uncertainty around liability, offering key lessons for Nigeria.

    • EU: The proposed AI Liability Directive and Artificial Intelligence Act classify healthcare AI as “high-risk” and introduce strict liability, requiring only proof of harm, not fault.[21]
    • UK: Favours a “human-in-the-loop” model, ensuring clinicians remain accountable while using AI to support, not replace medical decisions.[22]
    • South Africa: Exploring updates to health and consumer laws, with proposals to embed AI tools within existing professional liability frameworks.[23]

    These examples show that it’s possible to regulate AI while protecting patients. Nigeria must decide whether to act proactively or wait until harm forces reform.

    What Should Nigeria Do? (Recommendations)

    To prepare for a future where artificial intelligence plays a central role in healthcare delivery, Nigeria must develop a legal and regulatory framework that assigns responsibility, promotes innovation, and protects patients. The following reforms are recommended:

    1. Define AI Liability in Healthcare
       Enact clear guidelines assigning responsibility among developers, hospitals, and clinicians for AI-related medical errors.[24]
    2. Certify and Regulate AI Tools
       Require pre-market testing, risk assessments, and approval of medical AI systems by an independent body, such as NAFDAC or a digital health agency.[25]
    3. Ensure Transparency and Disclosure
       Mandate that patients are informed when AI is involved in care and that AI systems provide explainable outputs to support legal accountability.[26]
    4. Create a Digital Health & AI Liability Commission (DHALC)
       Establish a multi-stakeholder body to set standards, investigate AI-related incidents, and resolve disputes.[27]
    5. Train Medical and Legal Professionals
       Incorporate AI ethics, data governance, and liability into medical and legal education to prepare professionals for AI-integrated care.[28]
    6. Introduce AI Liability Insurance
       Require hospitals and AI vendors to join a no-fault insurance scheme to compensate patients harmed by AI errors, supported by a risk-based premium model.

    Conclusion

    AI holds great promise for improving healthcare in Nigeria enhancing diagnostics, expanding access, and easing pressure on medical staff. However, when AI systems fail, the consequences can be severe, and Nigeria’s current legal framework offers no clear path for accountability.

    To protect patients and ensure justice, Nigeria must establish clear liability rules for AI in healthcare. Proactive regulation, investment in institutional capacity, and legal safeguards are essential to balance innovation with responsibility. Now is the time for legal and policy reform before technology outpaces oversight.

    References

    [1] Journal of Healthcare Quality Research (2019). Medical errors in Nigerian hospitals.

    [2]Ugbomeh, W. O. (2024, June 15). Artificial intelligence in the Nigerian healthcare system: Revolutionizing access, efficiency, and care. ThisDayLive. https://www.thisdaylive.com/2024/06/15/artificial-intelligence-in-the-nigerian-healthcare-system-revolutionizing-access-efficiency-and-care-williams-ogochukwu-ugbomeh/?utm

    [3] Health Strategy and Delivery Foundation. (2024). Trends in health care – AI spotlight: AI’s revolutionary impact on health care in Nigeria.  https://hsdf.org.ng/trends-in-healthcare-ai-spotlight

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Ibid (n.1)

    [6] World Health Organization (WHO), Global Health Observatory Data Repository: Nigeria Health Workforce Statistics, 2022.

    [7] Nivedhaa, N. (2024). A comprehensive review of AI’s dependence on data. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science (IJADS), 1(1), 1–11. https://www.researchgate.net, Paik, K. E., Hicklen, R., Kaggwa, F., Puyat, C. V., Nakayama, L. F., Ong, B. A., Shropshire, J. N. I., & Villanueva, C. (2023). Digital determinants of health: Health data poverty amplifies existing health disparities—A scoping review. PLOS Digital Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    [8] Adejumo, O. A., & Adejumo, O. A. (2020). Legal perspectives on liability for medical negligence and malpractices in Nigeria. Pan African Medical Journal. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Delta State Hospitals Mgt Board & Ors V. Onome Lpelr-59333(CA)

    [9] Ogunyinka v. Lagos University Teaching Hospital (2017) LPELR-42351(CA)

    [10] See Section 1  Medical and Dental Practitioners Act 2014, CAP M8 LFN 2004.

    [11] See Section 15 & 16  Medical and Dental Practitioners Act 2014, CAP M8 LFN 2004.

    [12] See Section 343 & 344 Criminal Code Act LFN 2004

    [13] Atoyebi, O. M. (2024). An insight into medical negligence under Nigerian jurisprudence. https://omaplex.com.ng

    [14] For more information, see https://fccpc.gov.ng.

    [15] See section 37 of the Data Protection Act 2023.

    [16] Ibid.

    [17]Ulfbeck, V. (2024). Product liability law & AI. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org

    [18] Bottomley, D., & Thaldar, D. (2023). Liability for harm caused by AI in healthcare: An overview of the core legal concepts. Frontiers in Pharmacology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

    [19] Choi, W., & Lam, R. X. (2024). Assigning Moral Responsibility for AI-Derived Errors in Healthcare: Shared Responsibilization Without Responsibility Gaps. Digital Society, 3, 55.

    [20] Mensah, G. B., Mijwil, M. M., Abotaleb, S. M., Eid, M. M., Dutta, P. K., & Addy, A. (2023). Assessing the Role Ghana’s Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851) Can Play in Oversight of Artificial Intelligence Healthcare Systems to Prevent Medical Errors and Improve Patient Safety. Babylonian Journal of Artificial Intelligence.

    [21] Diega, G. N. L., & Bezerra, L. C. T. (2024). Can there be responsible AI without AI liability? Incentivizing generative AI safety through ex-post tort liability under the EU AI liability directive. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 32; Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/739342/EPRS_BRI(2023)739342_EN.pdf.

    [22] Lee, L., Salami, R. K., Martin, H., Shantharam, L., Thomas, K., et al. (2024). “How I would like AI used for my imaging”: children and young persons’ perspectives. European Radiology, 34, 7751–7764.

    [23] Naidoo, S., Bottomley, D., Naidoo, M., Donnelly, D., & Thaldar, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Proposals for policy development in South Africa. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 15, 11–16.

    [24] Mensah, G. B., Nyante,  E. A., & Addy, A. (2024). Conducting a Comparative Analysis of Medical Negligence Laws in Ghana’s Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) and Other African Common Law Countries Concerning Artificial Intelligence Systems. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. https://www.semanticscholar.org.

    [25] Adekunle,  & Dakare, O. (2020). Sustainable manufacturing practices and performance of the Nigerian table water industry: A structural equation modeling approach. Management of Environmental Quality, 31, 1003–1022.  https://www.emerald.com.

    [26] S., S., & Maheshwari, S. (2024). Navigating AI in Healthcare: Examining Medical Liability and the Imperative of Informed Consent in Addressing AI-driven Prescription Errors. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research.  https://www.semanticscholar.org.

    [27] Naidoo, T. (2024). Overview of AI regulation in healthcare: A comparative study of the EU and South Africa. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law.

    [28] Bottomley, D.,  (2023). Liability for harm caused by AI in healthcare: An overview of the core legal concepts. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 14.

  • Bride Price in Nigeria: Legal Framework on Refund Practices and Emerging Feminist Critiques

    Bride Price in Nigeria: Legal Framework on Refund Practices and Emerging Feminist Critiques

    INTRODUCTION 

    Bride price, a cornerstone of Nigerian customary marriages, symbolises cultural unity and validates unions across ethnic groups. Recognised as essential for customary marriages, it is regulated by statutes such as the Limitation of Dowry Law 1956 in some regions. However, the customary requirement to refund the bride price upon marriage dissolution has sparked legal and social debates, particularly concerning gender equality. This article examines the legal framework governing bride price and its refund, analysing statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and customary variations. Through a feminist lens, it critiques the practice’s potential to reinforce patriarchal norms and explores judicial trends challenging mandatory refunds as repugnant to natural justice. The article advocates for reforms that balance cultural heritage with equitable treatment of women.

    BRIDE PRICE: DEFINITION AND LEGAL STATUS

    Cultural and Legal Significance

    Bride price, also known as dowry, involves payments or gifts (for instance, cash, livestock, goods or services) offered by the groom or his family to the bride’s family during customary marriage processes. It symbolises gratitude, fosters familial bonds, and legitimises offspring. It varies across Nigeria’s ethnic groups; in Yoruba culture, it is termed “idana” and may include symbolic items. Among the Igbos, “Ime ego”, involves a ritual accompanied by gifts, and in Hausa communities, “sadaki” often involves cash payments.

    Legally, bride price is indispensable for a valid customary marriage. Nigerian courts have consistently held that its absence, unless explicitly waived for cogent reasons, renders a marriage void. This requirement underscores its role in formalising unions and distinguishing marriage from cohabitation.

    Statutory Regulation

    To address exorbitant bride price demands, which delay marriages and encourage informal unions, some regions have enacted regulatory laws. The Limitation of Dowry Law (1956), applicable in Eastern States (e.g. Anambra, Imo), caps bride price at N60 for marriages without incidental expenses and N50 plus N10 for related costs. Violations carry penalties of up to six months’ imprisonment. The law aims to curb commercialisation, which burdens grooms and commodifies marriage.

    However, judicial interpretations clarify that exceeding statutory limits does not invalidate a marriage. In Emeakuana v. Umeojiako (1990), the court recognised non-monetary payments (e.g. yams) as valid consideration, emphasising the law’s focus on regulating excesses rather than nullifying unions. This flexibility reflects Nigeria’s pluralistic legal system, where statutory and customary laws coexist.

    REFUND OF BRIDE PRICE: CUSTOMARY AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVES

    Customary Practices 

    The refund of bride price is a widespread customary requirement for dissolving a customary marriage, symbolising the formal termination of the union. Among the Igbos, the process, known as Izuchi’ahia Nwanyi, involves returning the exact sum paid, often during a family meeting. In Gbagyi custom, refunds may be adjusted based on factors like the number of children or the wife’s contributions. In contrast, some communities allow husbands to waive refunds, provided this is formally agreed and declared.

    Refusal to accept a refund can escalate disputes to customary courts or community elders, highlighting the practice’s social weight. However, the financial burden of refunds often falls on the bride’s family, creating barriers to divorce, particularly for women in abusive marriages.

    Legal Framework and Judicial Oversight

    Nigerian law mandates that customary marriages be dissolved through customary courts, with bride price refunds often forming a key procedural step. In Eze v. Omeke (1982), the court described dissolution without addressing the refund as “meaningless,” underscoring its legal significance. However, statutory caps under the Limitation of Dowry Law (1956) indirectly limit refund amounts in regulated regions, easing financial burdens.

    In Islamic law contexts, applicable in northern Nigeria, a woman seeking divorce (khul’i) may return the dowry, but courts allow flexibility. In Musa Usman v. Aisha Umar (2023), a Sharia court permitted a wife to pay N70,000.00 instead of the demanded N320,000.00, citing economic hardship. This contrasts with customary law’s stricter refund requirements, reflecting diverse legal approaches.

    FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF BRIDE PRICE AND REFUNDS

    From a feminist perspective, the practice of bride price and its associated refund obligations raise profound concerns about gender equity and the perpetuation of patriarchal structures. While bride price is often culturally framed as a gesture of respect or honour toward women and their families, feminist scholars argue that it frequently reinforces harmful gender norms by positioning women as commodities in a transactional exchange between families. This commodification reduces a woman’s value to a monetary or material equivalent, undermining her agency and framing marriage as an economic contract rather than a partnership of equals. The practice can entrench the notion that women are possessions to be “purchased” or “transferred,” fostering a sense of male ownership that may justify control, domination, or even abuse within the marriage.

    The transactional nature of bride price often establishes an unequal power dynamic from the outset of the marriage. In many societies, the payment of bride price is interpreted as granting the husband and his family certain rights over the wife, including expectations of obedience, domestic labour, or reproductive obligations. This dynamic can normalise patriarchal control, where women are expected to conform to traditional gender roles to “repay” the investment made by the husband’s family. Feminist critics argue that this setup not only limits women’s autonomy but also perpetuates a broader cultural narrative that prioritises male authority over female agency. For example, in cases where the bride price is particularly high, women may face heightened pressure to remain in a marriage, regardless of its quality or safety, to avoid being seen as a “failed investment.”

    The issue of bride price refunds exacerbates these concerns, particularly when a marriage dissolves. Refund obligations disproportionately burden women and their families, as they are often required to repay the bride price (sometimes with interest or additional penalties) if the marriage ends, whether due to divorce, separation, or the woman’s decision to leave. This practice can act as a form of economic coercion, trapping women in abusive or unhappy marriages out of fear that their families cannot afford to repay the bride price. In many cases, the financial burden falls on the woman’s family, who may have already spent the original payment on immediate needs or other cultural obligations, such as funding dowries for male siblings. This economic trap undermines women’s autonomy, as their ability to leave a marriage is contingent on financial resources rather than their personal choice or safety.

    Moreover, the refund requirement reinforces the notion that a woman’s value diminishes over time, particularly in long-term marriages. Feminist scholars highlight how this practice devalues women’s contributions to the marriage, such as childcare, domestic labour, or emotional support, which are often unquantified and unrecognised in the refund calculus. The expectation of repayment can also place women in a precarious social position, as they may face stigma or blame for “failing” to sustain the marriage, further eroding their dignity and agency. In extreme cases, women may be pressured to remain in abusive relationships to avoid subjecting their families to financial ruin or social ostracism.

    Feminist critiques also point to the intersectional dimensions of bride price and refunds, noting that these practices disproportionately affect women from marginalised or economically disadvantaged backgrounds. For women in low-income families, the inability to refund the bride price can create a cycle of entrapment, where economic constraints limit their options and reinforce dependency on patriarchal structures. Additionally, in societies where bride price is tied to virginity or youth, older women or those who have been previously married may face further devaluation, perpetuating ageist and gendered stereotypes.

    To address these concerns, feminist advocates call for a reevaluation of bride price practices, emphasising the need for cultural reforms that prioritise mutual respect and equality in marital relationships. Some propose replacing bride price with symbolic gestures that do not carry financial obligations, while others advocate for legal protections to ensure that refund demands cannot be used to coerce women into remaining in harmful or abusive marriages. Ultimately, the feminist critique of bride price and refunds underscores the need to dismantle systems that commodify women and restrict their autonomy, advocating for marriage practices that affirm women’s dignity and agency as equal partners.

    CONCLUSION

    Bride price remains a vital institution in Nigerian customary marriages, legally recognised and culturally cherished. However, the practice of refunding bride price upon divorce raises complex issues, from financial burdens to gendered inequities. Nigerian courts are increasingly challenging mandatory refunds, invoking the repugnancy doctrine and constitutional rights to prioritize fairness. A feminist lens reveals how bride price can entrench patriarchal norms, necessitating reforms that respect cultural heritage while advancing gender equity.

    REFERENCES

    Adichie, C. N. (2014). We should all be feminists. Anchor Books.

    Section 40 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended.

    Emeakuana v. Umeojiako, Nigerian Law Reports (1990).

    Eze v. Omeke, Customary Court of Appeal, Enugu (1982).

    Kagoma Custom Case, Upper Customary Court, Gwantu (2024).

    Limitation of Dowry Law, Eastern Nigeria (1956).

    Mada Custom Case, Upper Customary Court, Kafanchan (2023).

    Mifumi v. Attorney General, Supreme Court of Uganda (2015).

    Musa Usman v. Aisha Umar, Sharia Court, Kaduna (2023).

    Nwogugu, E. I. (2014). Family law in Nigeria. HEBN Publishers.

    Obi, S. N. C. (2008). Modern family law in southern Nigeria. Sweet & Maxwell.

    Okonkwo, C. O. (2019). Bride price and gender dynamics in Nigerian marriages. Journal of African Legal Studies, 12(3), 45–67.

    Onyekwere, J. (2021). Commercialization of bride price in Nigeria. African Feminist Review, 8(2), 23–39.

    Tanko v. Tanko, Customary Court, Abuja (2022).

  • OAL Advises on Kemi Adetiba’s Netflix Crime Drama “To Kill A Monkey”

    OAL is proud to announce its role as Legal Adviser for the highly anticipated 8-part Nigerian TV series, “To Kill A Monkey (TKAM)”. This latest work from award-winning filmmaker and storyteller Kemi Adetiba is now streaming exclusively on Netflix, further solidifying Nigeria’s presence on the global stage as a producer of compelling and culturally rich content.

    From conceptualisation to release, OAL’s Sports, Entertainment, and Technology (SET) Practice provided comprehensive legal support throughout every phase of the project. Our team’s expertise covered intellectual property rights protection, contract structuring and negotiation, licensing, production agreements, and regulatory compliance.

    “To Kill A Monkey” tells a bold and thought-provoking story, skilfully blending drama and suspense with a distinctly Nigerian voice. This series is the latest production from Kemi Adetiba, whose work continues to redefine African storytelling and inspire a new generation of filmmakers.

    We congratulate Kemi Adetiba and the entire production team on this bold and brilliant cinematic achievement. We are proud to have contributed to a project that embodies the richness of Nigerian creativity and storytelling on the global stage.

    TKAM is now streaming exclusively on Netflix!

  • OAL Advises on Groundbreaking Netflix Series “To Kill A Monkey”

    Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) is proud to announce its role as Legal Adviser for the highly anticipated 8-part Nigerian TV series, “To Kill A Monkey” (TKAM). This latest work from award-winning filmmaker and storyteller Kemi Adetiba is now streaming exclusively on Netflix, further solidifying Nigeria’s presence on the global stage as a producer of compelling and culturally rich content.

    From conceptualisation to release, OAL’s Sports, Entertainment, and Technology (SET) Practice provided comprehensive legal support throughout every phase of the project. Our team’s expertise covered intellectual property rights protection, contract structuring and negotiation, licensing, production agreements, and regulatory compliance.

    “To Kill A Monkey” tells a bold and thought-provoking story, skilfully blending drama and suspense with a distinctly Nigerian voice. This series is the latest production from Kemi Adetiba, whose work continues to redefine African storytelling and inspire a new generation of filmmakers.

    We congratulate Kemi Adetiba and the entire production team on this bold and brilliant cinematic achievement. We are proud to have contributed to a project that embodies the richness of Nigerian creativity, and storytelling on the global stage.

    To Kill a Monkey is now streaming exclusively on Netflix!

  • REVIEW: Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985)  157 @ 183

    REVIEW: Ubom v. GlobalCom (Nig.) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985)  157 @ 183

    The facts of the case 

    In 2010, Ubom, a budding artist (Appellant), participated in Globacom’s (‘the Respondent’) musical talent competition, GLO Naija Sings. She achieved second place in the competition but, contrary to her expectations, did not receive any monetary or material prizes. Several months later, Ubom was dismayed to discover that Globacom was extensively using her image on billboards across Nigeria to promote the 2011 edition of the competition, without her consent or authorisation. Feeling aggrieved by this unauthorised commercial exploitation of her image, Ubom initiated legal action before the High Court of Rivers State, seeking a declaration that the use of her image was illegal and reprehensible, claiming substantial general damages, along with an injunction to restrain further unauthorised use.

    In response, Globacom argued that the subject matter of Ubom’s claim pertained to copyright issues, specifically citing Sections 15(1)(a) and 26(1) of the Copyright Act Cap. C. 28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. Consequently, they contended that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and therefore, the Rivers State High Court lacked the competence to hear the suit. The trial court and subsequently the Court of Appeal upheld Globacom’s jurisdictional objection, striking out Ubom’s case on the premise that it was a copyright matter.

    Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Judgment

    The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous examination of the appellant’s amended statement of claim to ascertain the true nature and substance of her grievance. IDRIS (J.S.C) emphasised a cardinal principle that:

    “In dealing with pleadings, a court must read all the paragraphs together to get a flowing story of the parties and not a few paragraphs in isolation. It is the totality of the pleadings, whether it is the statement of claim or the statement of defence, that states the case of the party.”

    The Court observed that Ubom’s claims fundamentally revolved around the unauthorised commercial exploitation of her image and likeness for advertising purposes and Globacom’s economic benefit, without her consent. Whilst photographs can be considered artistic works and thus eligible for copyright under Sections 2 and 108 of the Copyright Act 2022 (which replaced the 2004 Act), the appellant’s claim was not predicated on her being the author or owner of the copyright in the photograph itself. She did not assert that she took the photograph or possessed the exclusive right to control its reproduction as a copyright holder. Instead, her grievance stemmed from the unauthorised commercial appropriation of her identity and image, which she argued constituted a breach of contract (whether implied or actual, regarding the competition’s terms) and an unlawful commercial use of her personality.

    The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts had erroneously conflated the copyright issue in relation to a photograph (which typically vests in the photographer who expends creative effort in its making, unless otherwise agreed) with the independent right of an individual to control the commercial use of their image or likeness. The appellant’s pleadings demonstrated a complaint about her “face, charm, personality, charisma, and talent” being used for Globacom’s “economic course” and “monstrous financial accumulation” without her consent. This, the Court found, did not constitute an action for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court for such matters.

    The Court clarified that for a claim to fall under copyright jurisdiction, the claimant must typically plead their title as owner, assignee, or exclusive licensee of the copyright, and then allege infringement of that copyright. Ubom’s claim did not meet these requirements; rather, it articulated a grievance akin to a breach of image rights or a contractual understanding, focusing on the lack of consent for commercial exploitation of her image.

    The Judgment

    IDRIS (J.S.C) delivered the lead Judgment stating:

    “In the light of the foregoing, I am of the very firm opinion that the concurrent decisions of both High Court of Rivers State and the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal should be disturbed as the said decisions were given in error and if same error is continued by this court, it would constitute a miscarriage of justice against the appellant. I hold that this appeal has merit and same is therefore hereby allowed. I hold that the State High Court, before which the matter was filed, has the jurisdiction to hear the matter and not the Federal High Court, as the matter is not one predicated on Copyright but Contract. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/385/2014 delivered on the 5th day of June, 2015, is therefore hereby set aside. It is hereby ordered that the matter be transferred to the Rivers State High Court for expeditious trial on the merits. The appellant is entitled to costs against the respondent.”

    This is a significant ruling that essentially overruled the decision of the lower courts and allowed Ubom’s appeal. It held that the trial court and the Court of Appeal erred in declining jurisdiction. The apex Court clarified that the substance of Ubom’s claim was not copyright infringement as defined by the Copyright Act, but rather a claim for breach of contract and unauthorised commercial exploitation of her image and likeness. As such, the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Federal High Court under the Copyright Act for copyright matters did not apply. The proper forum for Ubom’s suit was indeed the High Court of Rivers State. The case was therefore referred for trial on its merits.

    Broader Implications and Clarifications Arising from the Judgment

    • Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court clarified that claims relating to the unauthorised commercial use of a person’s image (also referred to as ‘image rights’ or ‘personality rights’) are distinct from statutory copyright infringement claims. Consequently, the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Copyright Act does not extend to such claims. The appropriate court for actions concerning the commercial exploitation of an individual’s likeness is the State High Court. This distinction reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the actual nature of the plaintiff’s claim.
    • Image Rights vs. Copyright: The decision underscores a crucial distinction; while the copyright in a photograph generally belongs to the photographer (the author who created the creative work), this copyright ownership does not automatically grant a blanket right to use the subject’s image for commercial purposes without their consent. Ubom, as the subject of the photograph, retained an independent right to control how her likeness was commercially utilised. This highlights the emerging recognition of “image rights” or “personality rights” in Nigerian jurisprudence, separate from the photographer’s copyright.
    • Consent and Implied Terms: The ruling emphasises the paramount necessity of obtaining explicit written or oral consent whenever an individual’s image is to be used for promotional or commercial purposes. Even in the absence of a formal written agreement, the Court implied that there might be understandings or expectations about permissible use, especially within the context of competitions and public appearances. The unauthorised use, in this case, negated any implied consent that might have arisen from her participation.

    Conclusion

    This landmark decision provides multiple lessons:

    • Stands as a stern reminder for legal practitioners to always meticulously analyse the precise nature of a client’s claim to determine the appropriate court and legal framework.
    • It highlights the fact that not all disputes involving proprietary images automatically fall under copyright law.
    • For companies, particularly those running creative competitions, engaging in advertising, or otherwise using participants’ images for commercial marketing purposes, the judgment underscores the critical necessity of securing clear and explicit consent for such uses.
    • Best practice demands that image and talent release forms be used by companies that require the use of images without restrictions post-event.
    • It reinforces the fact that even where a formal written contract might be absent, implied understandings regarding image usage exist, and their breach can lead to substantial liability.

    The case makes it unequivocally clear that an individual’s right to control the commercial use of their image is a fundamental consideration, distinct from the photographer’s copyright in the image itself.

  • Negligence by Design: When Poor User Experience/User Interface in Health Technology Causes Harm to Patient, Is There a Case to Answer?

    Negligence by Design: When Poor User Experience/User Interface in Health Technology Causes Harm to Patient, Is There a Case to Answer?

    INTRODUCTION

    Technology has revolutionised healthcare, transforming how patients access care and how professionals diagnose, monitor, and treat illness. Beyond the physical tools of medicine, such as surgical equipment or MRI machines an increasingly vital part of the healthcare system is intangible: digital health technologies, including telemedicine platforms, electronic health records (EHRs), and AI-driven diagnostic tools…

    These technologies offer tremendous potential. A 2023 World Health Organisation (WHO) report noted a 30% reduction in preventable medical errors in facilities adopting advanced digital systems. Similarly, a 2023 survey by the International Medical Informatics Association found that 74% of healthcare organisations using AI-assisted diagnostics reported fewer misdiagnoses in high-risk areas like stroke and cancer. Furthermore, a 2022 study by the Journal of Patient Safety showed that the implementation of AI-based diagnostics reduced diagnostic errors by 25%. While these statistics highlight the upside of digital health innovation, they also mask a critical issue: What happens when the technology fails not because of a medical error, but due to poor design? When a patient suffers harm because a digital platform is confusing, inaccessible, or difficult to use, the question arises is there negligence by design?

    This article examines the legal and ethical dimensions of that question, focusing specifically on telemedicine platforms as a case study for how poor user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) can result in patient harm.

    TELEMEDICINE

    Before we delve into the history of telemedicine, let’s take a moment to define what it means. According to the Oxford Dictionary, Telemedicine is the remote diagnosis and treatment of patients by means of telecommunications technology[1]. It is the delivery of health care from a distance using electronic information and technology, such as computers, cameras, videoconferencing, satellites, wireless communications, and the internet. Also called telehealth.[2] The history of telemedicine can be traced back to 1850 when the telegraph was used to deliver health care. During World War it became important to communicate with people that are far away for a number of reasons. One of such reasons is a lack of enough medical personnel at the war front, and it would be disastrous to rely on letters, as messages could go missing. As a result, telegraph cables were laid and transmission of information was made easier. The telegraph made remote wartime communication possible. It was used to order medical supplies and transmit casualty reports. The tech was so integrated that telegraph wagons commonly idled right behind the frontline, sending and receiving information from the battlefield as needed.[3] Then the advent of the telephone made virtual consultation easier. Now we have Apps that are designed to provide health services. Some of these apps use doctors to provide services to patients, while some use AI, as AI can now diagnose, prescribe medicine and even provide follow-up on some patients.

     LIABILITY IN TELEMEDICINE

    Traditionally, healthcare laws place liability on providers for treatment errors or deviations from medical standards. However, these laws predate digital health and often don’t address harm caused by flawed user interfaces or poor UX design in telemedicine areas where AI and virtual care now play a central role.

    In the context of telemedicine, errors can originate from multiple sources: a misstep by the physician, a malfunction or limitation in the AI system, or even a design flaw within the application developed by third-party companies. Between 2014 and 2018, misdiagnosis emerged as the most frequently reported issue in telemedicine-related health incidents. Interestingly, most, if not all, of these cases were resolved outside the courtroom, leaving a legal grey area: should liability rest with the healthcare provider using the platform, or with the developers and companies behind the technology itself? The courts have yet to deliver a definitive answer.

    In a situation where a poor user experience/user interface causes harm, is there a case to answer? Yes, a lot of healthcare providers are not familiar with the use of technology; hence, they might encounter problems during the process of using the technology. Also, some of the developers charged with the creation of some of the technologies used in telemedicine are not vast in medicine, so there is a likelihood that an error might occur. The error might also be from the part of the patient who is not really vast in the use of the available technology.  The issues listed above create a poor user interface because the features have been designed in such a way as to make it hard for users to make the best of it. In a sector like medicine, some of these errors can cause harm to the patients and in a worst case scenario, it can lead to death[4].

    In light of the ongoing, it has become imperative to ask the question: Who would be liable for a harm occasioned by a poor user interface? Is it the developer whose design made it difficult to navigate the web or app? Is it the doctor who, although not familiar with the workings of the app, still proceeded to use it? Or would the patient be blamed for an error that occurs through their poor use of the technology? The three parties can all be liable depending on the role they play. We will discuss instances where either of the parties would be liable below.

    INSTANCES WHERE THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER WOULD BE LIABLE

    1. NEGLIGENCE: The standard in medical practice is that the healthcare provider owes the patient a duty of care[5], where there is a breach of this duty, negligence is said to have occurred. As a health practitioner, you should take reasonable care when dealing with your patients. This duty of care would extend to providing services via telemedicine. A healthcare provider who finds it difficult to navigate an app due to a poor user experience should not use it when providing services to their patient, and if they proceed to do that and it results in harm to the client, they will be liable for negligence. In Nigeria,  the negligence might amount to a crime, i.e. criminal negligence and not just a tortious liability[6]
    2. BREACH OF PRIVACY: Poor user experience may also lead to breach of privacy. Some of the technologies employed in healthcare usually collect data on patients. A poor user interface can cause the data to get into the hands of a third party who might use it wrongly. A healthcare provider who knows this and still proceeds to use the app or permits the technology to share the data might be liable for breach of privacy, which is unconstitutional. Where a healthcare provider causes the data of a patient to be disclosed to other parties without the necessary leave or exception[7].
    3. USING A HEALTH TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT: A healthcare provider who uses a technology that is not certified by the government would also be liable in a case where a poor user interface causes harm to the patient[8].

    INSTANCES WHERE THE DEVELOPER OF THE TECHNOLOGY WOULD BE LIABLE

    1. NEGLIGENCE: The principle of negligence in this instance would not only apply to the healthcare provider but also to the developer of the technology. The developer of a technology ought to take reasonable care so that the interface of the technology they created won’t cause harm to the users. He owes the user of the technology a duty of reasonable care, and a breach of it by designing a poor user interface, which amounts to the harm of the patient, would amount to the breach of that duty[9]. The creator of the technology who created a poor design can also be liable under the criminal code for creating something that causes harm or endangers the user’s life[10].
    2. DESIGN ERROR: Where the poor interface is a result of a design error of the developer, they have a case to answer for any harm it caused to the patient. A manufacturer has the duty to withdraw a hazardous product from the market if they do not and it causes harm to the consumer; they will be liable under the FCCPC Act. The court has held that where there is a direct link between the product and the ailment, the manufacturer would be liable[11].
    3. FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION: They can be liable for fraud where they hold out that the technology has an interface that it does not have. If a company holds out its health technology as something that it is not and a patient suffers harm, the developer can be liable for fraud or misrepresentation.
    4.  PUTTING OUT A HEALTH TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT: A developer who commences the use of a technology that is not certified by the government would also be liable in a case where a poor user interface causes harm to the patient.[12]
    5. BREACH OF PRIVACY: Like the healthcare practitioner, the developer of the technology also has the duty of protecting the records of the patient. It cannot sell it to a third party or be so careless with its cybersecurity as to amount to the loss of the data.

    CONCLUSION

    Health technology, especially telemedicine, holds immense promise, but that promise is contingent on thoughtful, inclusive, and safe design. Where harm arises not from human clinical error but from digital platforms that are confusing, inaccessible, or poorly built, the responsibility may shift from the doctor to the designer.

    In such cases, there may indeed be a case to answer ethically, and increasingly, legally. As healthcare becomes more digitised, regulators, developers, and providers must treat UI/UX design not as an afterthought, but as an essential component of patient safety.

    REFERENCES

    [1] Oxford dictionary

    [2]https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/telemedicine#:~:text=Listen%20to%20pronunciation,Also%20called%20telehealth.

    [3]https://www.sigmundsoftware.com/blog/history-of-telehealth/#:~:text=In%201876%2C%20Alexander%20Graham%20Bell,to%20healthcare%20with%20telecommunications%20technology.

    [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9581762/

    [5] Section 303 of Criminal code

    [6] Section 303 criminal code

    [7] Section 26 National Health Act

    [8] Section 14 National Health Act

    [9] Donoghue v. Stevenson.

    [10] Section 343 criminal code

    [11] NBC Plc v. Olarewaju (2006) LPELR-7696(CA)

    [12]  Section 14 National Health Act

     

  • Nigeria’s Historic Tax Reform: A Game-Changer With Missing Pieces

    Nigeria’s Historic Tax Reform: A Game-Changer With Missing Pieces

    On June 26, 2025, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu made history by signing into law four comprehensive tax reform bills that promise to transform Nigeria’s revenue generation landscape fundamentally. The Nigeria Tax Act (NTA), the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), the Nigeria Revenue Service Act (NRSA), and the Joint Revenue Board Act (JRBA), collectively referred to as “the Acts,” represent the most significant overhaul of Nigeria’s tax system in decades.

    These new Tax Acts introduce sweeping changes designed to drive economic growth, increase revenue generation, improve the business environment, and enhance effective tax administration across different levels of government. The reforms represent a fundamental shift from multiple, fragmented tax laws to a single, consolidated framework that eliminates overlapping, conflicting, or ambiguous provisions while streamlining Nigeria’s tax system.

    Enhanced Revenue Generation and International Compliance

    The Nigeria Tax Act, 2025, significantly broadens what constitutes taxable income, explicitly bringing digital assets, virtual currencies, prizes, winnings, honoraria, grants, and awards into the tax net. The Act also captures foreign exchange differences from securities and derivative transactions under an expanded definition of “interest,” ensuring comprehensive coverage of modern financial instruments.

    To strengthen revenue generation, the Act introduces a new 4% Development Levy on assessable profits, which consolidates previously separate levies including the Tertiary Education Tax, Information Technology Levy, National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI) levy, and Police Trust Fund levy. This consolidation improves collection efficiency while ensuring dedicated funding for critical national development priorities.

    The reforms align Nigeria with international tax standards by implementing a minimum effective tax rate of 15% for large companies with turnover exceeding ₦20 billion and multinational enterprises. This measure prevents aggressive tax planning and ensures that profitable companies contribute their fair share to national development.

    International tax compliance receives significant attention through sophisticated anti-avoidance measures. The Act requires Nigerian companies to pay tax on undistributed profits of foreign subsidiaries that could have been distributed without harming business operations, effectively preventing profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. The Value Added Tax (VAT) system maintains the established 7.5% rate while incorporating strengthened administration measures. Additional revenue streams include a 5% surcharge on chargeable fossil fuel products, though this excludes clean energy products and household essentials. The explicit taxation of digital and virtual assets positions Nigeria ahead of the curve as the digital economy continues to expand.

    Relief Measures and Institutional Transformation

    Despite the focus on revenue enhancement, the reforms provide significant relief measures that demonstrate sensitivity to different business scales and individual taxpayers. Small companies with annual gross turnovers of ₦50 million and below are completely exempted from Company Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and the Development Levy, encouraging small business growth and entrepreneurship. For individual taxpayers, the first ₦800,000 of annual personal income is taxed at 0%, providing substantial relief for low and middle-income earners while ensuring that the tax burden falls more equitably on those with higher earning capacity.

    The institutional reforms are equally transformative. The Federal Inland Revenue Service has been renamed the Nigeria Revenue Service, reflecting its expanded responsibilities and national scope. Value Added Tax (VAT) administration receives a significant boost through mandatory e-invoicing and fiscalization rules, bringing Nigeria’s tax administration into the digital age. Perhaps most significantly, the reforms introduce a Tax Ombudsman office to provide independent arbitration for tax-related complaints, positioning Nigeria as a progressive early adopter of modern tax administration practices in Africa while ensuring taxpayer rights are protected.

    The Missing Link: Non-Tax Revenue

    However, despite these comprehensive reforms, a critical gap remains in Nigeria’s revenue strategy. The new legislation focuses almost exclusively on tax revenue, leaving vast non-tax revenue opportunities untapped. There should be additional legislation to address non-tax revenue. This is important given Nigeria’s current fiscal challenges, which are starkly illustrated by the 2025 budget figures.

    Nigeria’s 2025 budget reveals the magnitude of the revenue challenge facing the country. With a total expenditure of N54.99 trillion and projected revenue of only N41.81 trillion, the country faces a staggering deficit of N13.08 trillion, representing approximately 31% of total government revenue and 1.52% of GDP. This deficit is among the largest on record for Nigeria.

    Most concerning is how this deficit will be financed. The Minister of Finance has clarified that the N13 trillion deficit will be financed through borrowing, which will add to Nigeria’s already substantial debt burden. With additional borrowing of N9.2 trillion targeted for 2025, Nigeria’s public debt could exceed N150 trillion by the end of 2025.

    The constitutional framework already provides for extensive non-tax revenue opportunities. Section 162 of the Constitution defines the Federation’s “revenue” to include any income or return accruing to the Government of the Federation from any source, including receipts arising from the operation of any law, returns from government property, and interest on loans and dividends.

    Also read: The Critical Role of Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committees: Ensuring Effective Criminal Justice Reform in Nigeria

    Unleashing Nigeria’s Non-Tax Revenue Potential

    The potential for non-tax revenue generation is staggering and could significantly reduce Nigeria’s reliance on deficit financing. Expert estimates suggest Nigeria could generate close to N100 trillion from various non-tax sources, including:

    Asset Monetization

    It is estimated that there are about 50,000 abandoned federal projects across the country valued at over N10 trillion. This is in addition to the Federal Government’s landed property across Nigeria, estimated modestly at N5 trillion. The Ministry of Finance Incorporated (MOFI) is a federal government investment agency that holds N30 trillion worth of Federal Government assets. The Federal Secretariat in Ikoyi, Lagos alone is worth at least N120 billion and has been abandoned for over 40 years. Appropriate frameworks need to be developed to monetise these assets.

    Local Content Enforcement

    Local content is a policy that ensures that there is “Nigerian content” (local content) in the execution of projects. It is mostly applied in the Oil and Gas Industry by the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act. Local content policy creates indigenous jobs and retains revenues that would have otherwise gone abroad. Local content policy in oil and gas has been successfully implemented in engineering, but not in other services like Legal, Banking, Insurance, and Shipping. Local content will need to be vigorously implemented under the Local Content Act. This will bring huge revenue accruals and jobs. Experts estimate Nigeria loses over $1 billion yearly from non-enforcement of local content in legal services alone. Imagine the loss from banking, insurance, and shipping.

    Land Revenue Optimisation

    The value of the Nigerian Housing Inventory is estimated at over $6 trillion, but 80% of properties in Nigeria are dead capital. They have no revenue value, and this is largely traceable to a lack of proper documentation and titling, such as a Certificate of Occupancy. Without these, the owners can’t sell the properties easily, use them as collateral for loans, or attract investment. The solution is a massive reform of property titling to link property to the financial system. This will bring dead capital to life and transform it into revenue, which banks can recognise as collateral to benefit the economy. This will massively generate revenue and inject needed cash into the economy.

    Port Infrastructure Revenue

    This is potentially the largest economic sector outside oil and gas. A report by a Dutch consultancy firm, Dynanmar, shows that Nigeria loses about N20 billion daily (which annually is about N8 trillion) at the Lagos ports due to poor infrastructure. In other maritime sectors, Nigeria is estimated to be capable of generating N7 trillion annually and four million jobs over 4 years, but to deliver this, the following needs to be done: overhaul of ports infrastructure, Cabotage enforcement, the passage of critical maritime legislation like the Maritime Zones Bill, Ports Harbour Bill, etc. These laws, when passed, will generate non-tax revenue and attract massive investments in the sector.

    Satellite Technology Revenue

    Space is the next big investment arena. Space infrastructure companies received a record $14.5 billion of private investment in 2021, and the numbers are growing. These companies are ushering in next-generation small satellite capabilities with enormous value to commercial and government customers, including organisations in Energy, Mining, Manufacturing, Transportation, Finance, Security, Agriculture, and Communications. For Nigeria to fully derive benefit from these opportunities in terms of investments and development, including revenue and jobs, the 2006 Space Policy and the 2010 National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA)Act need to be updated. The Government needs to issue an Executive Order mandating Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to procure only satellite data generated by NASRDA.

    Judgment Debts

    Nigeria’s Federal Government is owed approximately N5.2 trillion in judgment debts by over 5,000+ debtors across ten (10) Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). These debts are in the form of debt liabilities to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS); refunds to the Government by companies who failed to deliver on projects for which payment had been effected, unpaid credit facilities granted to both corporate entities and individuals by the Bank of Industry (BOI) and Bank of Agriculture (BOA); judgment debt in favour of Government, debts owed Pension Transitional Arrangement Directorate (PTAD) by Insurance Companies etc. To recover these debts, there needs to be an inventory of all debts owed to the federal government. The Federal Government also needs to put in place an appropriate policy and legal framework to facilitate the recovery of these debts.

    Looking Forward

    While the tax reform bills represent a monumental step forward in modernising Nigeria’s revenue system, they address only half of the revenue equation. The government must now turn its attention to the vast untapped potential in non-tax revenue streams. This requires not just policy changes but fundamental shifts in how government assets are managed, how compliance is enforced across MDAs, and how revenue generation is conceptualised beyond traditional taxation.

    Given the scale of Nigeria’s 2025 budget deficit of N13.08 trillion, the urgency of developing non-tax revenue sources cannot be overstated. The potential N100 trillion from non-tax sources could not only eliminate the budget deficit but also reduce Nigeria’s dangerous dependence on borrowing, which threatens to push public debt beyond sustainable levels.

    The success of these tax reforms will ultimately be measured not just by increased tax compliance and collection, but by their contribution to Nigeria’s overall fiscal sustainability. To truly address the country’s revenue challenges and reduce its dangerous dependence on borrowing, Nigeria must embrace a comprehensive revenue strategy that harnesses both tax and non-tax opportunities.

    As the effective date of the new Acts approaches (expected to be no earlier than January 1, 2026), businesses and government agencies alike must prepare for this new era in Nigerian fiscal policy. The transformation has begun, but the work of building a truly robust and diversified revenue base is far from complete.

     

  • Online Safety & Cybercrimes: Navigating Nigeria’s Cybersecurity Compliance And Safety Laws

    Online Safety & Cybercrimes: Navigating Nigeria’s Cybersecurity Compliance And Safety Laws

    Cybercrime has become a constant source of alarming headlines worldwide, dominating news cycles across tabloids and electronic media. A significant number of individuals globally have fallen victim to phishing schemes, fake internet accounts used to impersonate others, cruel cyberbullying, intrusive stalking, hacking, blackmail threats, and a steady stream of fake news, primarily disseminated through the internet. Unfortunately, the majority of victims choose to remain silent, often due to fear of the unknown, ignorance of relevant laws, or a lack of resources to file complaints with the appropriate agencies.

    At the forefront of the silence and inactivity, especially after suffering from internet related menace, is ignorance. A good number of Nigerians assume that cybersecurity laws only apply to persons within the tech ecosystem. Most people are unaware of the legal framework that ensures online safety and combats internet crimes.

    Nigeria, through the instrumentality of the constitution and other cybercrime laws and data privacy regulations, whether applying to the general public or within specified industries, has established a series of legal protections which serve to combat cybercrime.

    The major problem, leading to the current state of lawlessness and inactivity, is that people remain unaware of these laws and how to employ them to protect themselves, as well as which institutions to contact in cases that demand the intervention of the relevant regulatory institutions.

    According to a recent survey, 35% of all global cyberattacks were ransomware (a type of cyber-attack that encrypts the victim’s personal data until a ransom is paid). There was an increase of 84% in ransomware over the previous year. It also revealed that 70% of the ransomware targeted small and medium scale Businesses. Additionally, Phishing attacks (a type of cybercrime where malicious actors attempt to trick individuals into revealing sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, credit card details, and other personal information) increased by 1,265%. These attacks are mainly driven by the massive developments in Gen AI.[1]

    The Court of Appeal in Daily Times Nig. Plc v. Arum (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1914) 559 on the implication of publishing defamatory matter online, stated as follows;

    ‘A publication made online carries far-reaching implications. A major feature of texts, pictures and every material placed on the Internet is universal accessibility with minimal protocols, anywhere and everywhere there is access to the Internet. Publishing through the Internet or making a publication online implies a desire to make the materials so published available globally.’ (P. 575, paras. C-E)

    The Hon.Justice Hannatu Jummai Sankey, JCA made a striking comment in the case of Jubril v. FRN (2018) LPELR43993 (CA);

     “It must be disheartening to all right-thinking Nigerians that the rampant, atrocious and egocentric crime has unleashed dire consequences on the integrity and image of the country. This has both short-term and long-term effects on society and the nation as a whole. Therefore, although the punishment prescribed by law, may appear harsh and draconian, it is hoped that it will deter like-minded persons from embarking on such criminal ventures.”

    This article aims to break down Nigeria’s cybersecurity compliance framework and online safety laws for every Nigerian.

    THE FOUNDATION OF CYBERSECURITY LAW IN NIGERIA.

    The special relationship between the law and social phenomena, where the law either preempts criminal or civil wrongs or it reacts to criminalise action, has played its role in the cybersecurity issue in Nigeria. From the rise of digital fraud to data breaches, cyberbullying, cyberstalking and other digital malfeasance, the cybersecurity legal frameworks in Nigeria were birthed. The framework evolved through the lenses of constitutional protections, statutory intervention, and sector-specific regulations. Today, the cybersecurity legal framework of the country is a multi-layer system.

    Let us consider, presently, the relevant layers of the Nigerian Cybersecurity legal framework:

    1. THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS ALTERED)

    The 1999 constitution, being the groundnum of the Nigerian legal system itself, is the bedrock of Nigeria’s cyber laws. The idea that every Nigerian has a constitutional right to their own privacy, which includes privacy in the digital space, is provided for by Section 37 of the constitution. It is on this constitutional foundation that the entire individual protection in cybersecurity is built. 

    2. CYBERCRIMES (PROHIBITION AND PREVENTION, ETC.) AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

    The Cybersecurity (Prohibition and Prevention, etc) Amendment Act was first promulgated in 2015 and was further amended in 2024. It is Nigeria’s primary cyber law. The Act is significant because of two important provisions:

    1. It criminalises a broad range of cybercrimes (Sections 6, 8, 9,10, 11, 12 of the Act)
    2. It imposes a responsibility on service providers, banks, and telecoms to help detect and report digital crimes (Section 7 of the Act).

    The Act also offers a thorough framework for fighting violations such as the following:

    1. Hacking and Unauthorised Access
    2. Cyberstalking and Online Bullying
    3. Phishing, Identity Theft, and Financial Fraud
    4. Pornography and Online Child Exploitation
    5. Cyberterrorism and strikes on key infrastructure, etc.

    THE NIGERIAN DATA PROTECTION ACT 2023.

    Prior to 2023, the framework of Data protection in Nigeria was essentially regulated by the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019, which introduced baseline rules for handling personal data. However, with the passage of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA), 2023, the country took a major leap forward with regards to Data Protection, bringing the regulation of data in Nigeria in line with global best practices. This marked a significant advancement for the country in the area of data protection.

    THE ADVANCE FEE FRAUD AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES ACT, 2006 

    The Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006is a legislation which aims to criminalise and prescribe punishment for different forms of fraudulent activities, including, but not limited to advance fee fraud commonly known as “419” and related offences. It criminalises specific acts, provides for consequent penalties, and procedures for prosecuting such crimes. The primary focus of the law is on protecting individuals as well as financial institutions from criminal fraudulent activities.

    Key provisions of the Act include:

    1. Prohibition of Advance Fee Fraud:
      Section 1 of the Act explicitly prohibits obtaining property or inducing the delivery of property, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, through impersonation or false pretences with the intention to commit fraud. This provision covers circumstances where money or other digital or physical assets are obtained under false pretences or in exchange for promises of delivery of goods or services that were never delivered.
    2. Other Fraudulent Offences:
      Beyond proscription of ‘419’ activities, the Act also proscribes other associated offences, such as using premises for fraudulent activities and inducing people to travel to Nigeria for fraudulent purposes.

    THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT, ETC.) ACT, 2004 AND THE MONEY LAUNDERING (PREVENTION AND PROHIBITION) ACT, 2022.

    The EFCC Act, together with the Money Laundering Act, directs the attention of the anti-money laundering and financial crimes agency’s incessant attention to cyber-based financial offences while, at the same time, paying special attention to digital asset scams and illegal online financial transactions. For instance, the recent case of Crypto Bridge Exchange ‘CIBEX’ and its alleged fraudulent activities is still under investigation by the agency.

    TERRORISM (PREVENTION AND PROHIBITION) ACT, 2022 

    The Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, was the first statutory intervention directed towards the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria. However, in 2022, the Act was further amended to the present Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The law establishes a comprehensive legal framework for detecting, preventing, and prosecuting acts of terrorism and related activities. The Act also addresses terrorism financing, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and related matters.

    A very important provision of the Act, for the purpose, is the provision on terrorism Financing. Section 13 (2) (e) and 21 (1) of the Act criminalise financing terrorism and solicitation of funds through any means, including digital platforms for the propagation of any acts of terrorism.

    SECTOR-SPECIFIC LAWS THAT PROMOTE CYBERSECURITY.

    NIGERIAN COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 2003

    The Nigerian Communications Act of 2003 (NCA) primarily focuses on liberalising the telecommunications sector and establishing the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) as the regulatory body. While the Act lays the foundation for telecommunications regulation, it contains limited provisions specifically addressing cybersecurity and data protection. However, the Nigerian Communications Commission, empowered by the Act, plays a role in ensuring cybersecurity through its licensing and regulatory functions. Other related legislation, like the Cybercrime Act, complements the NCA in addressing cybersecurity threats.

    Additionally, the Nigerian Communications Act of 2003, together with NCC Guidelines, establishes rules for telecom providers to require SIM registration while protecting ISP customer data.

    NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CYBERSECURITY GUIDELINE, 2024

    The Guidelines is a product of the Nigeria Bar Association aimed at imposing the responsibility to protect client data and digital ethics on lawyers in Nigeria.

    Article 2 (a) of the Guideline requires Nigerian lawyers to implement and maintain appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect client information against unauthorised access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction.

    Under Article 5 of the Guidelines, Nigerian lawyers and legal organisations must implement robust and secure network configurations to safeguard against unauthorised access and cyber threats. This includes, but not limited to:

    1. Firewalls and Intrusion Detection Systems: Deploying and maintaining firewalls and intrusion detection systems to monitor and control incoming and outgoing network traffic, preventing malicious activities.
    2. Secure Network Protocols: Utilising secure network protocols, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), for all remote access to ensure data confidentiality and integrity.
    3. Regular Assessments and Audits: Conducting periodic assessments and audits of network configurations to proactively identify and remediate vulnerabilities. This includes regularly checking for unauthorised devices or access points connected to the network.
    4. Network Segmentation: Where appropriate, segmenting the network to isolate sensitive data from general office networks. This measure limits potential exposure and contains the impact in the event of a network breach.

    CBN CYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES FOR DEPOSIT MONEY BANKS AND PAYMENT SERVICE BANKS, 2024.

    The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently issued a Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework and Guidelines for Deposit Money Banks (DMBs) and Payment Service Banks (PSBs). The framework came into effect on July 1, 2024, outlining the irreducible cybersecurity requirements for these Deposit Money Banks and Payment Service Banks to improve their capability to counter cyber threats. The framework places importance on governance structure, risk management, resilience, and quick response cyberattacks.

    The purpose of the framework is to serve as guidance to DMBs and PSBs in developing and administering vigorous cybersecurity programs to safeguard their systems, data, and customers from cyberattacks.

    Why Cyber Crimes Still Persist in Nigeria

    The Nigerian legal system possesses strength, but its implementation suffers because of insufficient funding, along with fragmented enforcement procedures. The majority of police personnel lack proper training to handle digital crime investigations. Some lack the technical tools. The lack of seriousness from some law enforcement personnel towards online threats is also a major problem.

    Similarly, the majority of Nigerians avoid reporting cybercrimes because they doubt authorities will handle their cases seriously, or they lack information about proper reporting procedures.

    RECENT CASES OF CYBERSECURITY HACKS IN NIGERIA.

    1. In 2021, suspected hackers infiltrated the website of the Delta state government, placing job advertisements on the portal with a recruitment fee of ₦8,500. The Delta state government promptly released a statement informing the public that its website had been hacked and disowning the said job advertisement.[2]
    2. In 2013, a medical student of the Delta State University hacked the phone of the then Delta State Governor, Emmanuel Uduaghan, sending a text message to the institution’s vice chancellor, Prof Eric Arubayi, instructing him to make sure that the hacker obtains credits in specific courses, which he failed.[3]
    3. In July 2025, hackers infiltrated the phone of the Osun State Governor.  Spokesperson of the governor, Mr Olawale Rasheed, disclosed that one of the phone numbers of his principal has been hacked.[4]
    4. In July 2025, a hacker in Imo state entered the roof of a commercial bank and waited until close of business before hacking the computers of the bank. The bank resumed the next day, only to start their computers but with the response “Restarting. Click OK to accept.” he was subsequently discovered and arrested.[5]
    5. In April 2025, suspected hackers hacked the systems of an unnamed bank, and moved a reported 10 billion into other undisclosed accounts. The Police authorities subsequently brought an application before the Federal High Court in Abuja to place a Post No Deposit (PND) on all the accounts the monies were moved to, so as to track and prevent the dissipation of the fund.[6]

    THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CYBERSECURITY AND LABOUR RELATIONS IN NIGERIA.

    The connection between cybercrime and unemployment in Nigeria is a significant issue for experts and policymakers alike. As the digital economy grows, so does the complexity of cybercriminal activities. Nigeria, undergoing rapid digital transformation, is becoming a focal point for cybercriminals due to widespread internet access, weak cybersecurity, and societal vulnerabilities.

    Unemployment, especially among youth, is a major problem in Nigeria. The effect of cybercrime on job markets, including its potential to eliminate legal jobs, hinder economic growth, and raise unemployment, has not been adequately explored in Nigerian economic discussions. Cybercrimes in Nigeria include financial fraud, identity theft, internet fraud, hacking, and online extortion. These crimes disrupt the digital economy, causing substantial financial losses to businesses, government, and individuals. Consequently, funds that could be used for job creation and economic development are instead spent fighting cybercrime, thus limiting job growth. Furthermore, the rise of cybercrime often creates job insecurity and an unfavourable economic climate that discourages investment in legitimate industries, worsening unemployment.[7]

    WHAT EVERY NIGERIAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT CYBERSECURITY.

    1. Need to protect Your Data: Your data requires protection; you should avoid sharing passwords and bank details, and national ID numbers without proper caution. In addition, you need to be wary of accepting terms and conditions on websites without thoroughly reading and understanding those terms. These are means to trade off your personal details without active participation.
    2. Know your rights: the first step to protecting your rights is knowing that such rights in fact exist. The next step is to take decisive steps by reporting any form of cybersecurity breaches, such as cyberbullying, cyberstalking as well as blackmail, fraud, and data breaches to the appropriate agencies, including but not limited to; Nigeria Police Cybercrime Unit or the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, or the Nigeria Data Protection Commission.
    3. Update your internet security: Make your security a priority by implementing strong passwords, together with two-factor authentication and antivirus software.
    4. Speak out: Online harassment and scams require victims to voice their situations. The law provides solutions for these cases.
    5. Always obtain permission before posting content: The distribution of private photos or chats without approval or consent from the owner can result in criminal prosecution.

    CONCLUSION.

    Online safety is non-negotiable. This starts with an individual’s duty to protect personal information while understanding digital rights and alerting the relevant authorities about suspicious activities. It does not end there.

    Also, Nigeria really needs to advance cybersecurity from its current policy status to a national priority so it can compete effectively in the global digital economy. The achievement of cybersecurity requires equal measures of state responsibility and institutional unity, together with continuous funding for digital infrastructure development and enhanced law enforcement capabilities.

    The law must not only exist on paper, but it must be enforced in practice. The same level of attention that goes into creating these laws for both punishing cybercriminals and safeguarding digital rights of citizens and businesses, and institutions must be dedicated by policymakers to develop public education programmes and provide enforcement training for investigative agency resources. With these in place, the internet can become a safer platform for expression, information, and innovation.

     

    REFERENCES

    [1] SentinelOne, ‘Key Cybersecurity Statistics for 2025’ < https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/cyber-security-statistics/ >  accessed 11 July 2025.

    [2] The Punch, ‘Fraudsters hack into Delta website, fix job application fee at N8,500’ < https://punchng.com/fraudsters-hack-into-delta-website-fix-job-application-fee-at-n8500/ > accessed 11 July 2025.

    [3] The Vanguard, ‘How hacker stunned Gov Uduaghan, cloned his phone to solicit favours’ < https://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/05/how-hacker-stunned-gov-uduaghan-cloned-his-phone-to-solicit-favours/ > accessed 11 July 2025.

    [4] The Vanguard, ‘Scammers hack Osun gov’s phone number —Aide’ < https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/07/scammers-hack-osun-govs-phone-number-aide/ > accessed 11 July 2025.

    [5] Daily Trust, ‘How man who sneaked into bank through toilet was caught hacking systems’ < https://dailytrust.com/how-man-who-sneaked-into-bank-through-toilet-was-caught-hacking-systems/ > accessed 11 July 2025.

    [6] Legit ‘Scammers Hack Nigerian Bank, Steal N10 Billion, 818 Accounts Identified as Other Banks Upgrade’ < https://www.legit.ng/business-economy/money/1619636-scammers-hacks-nigerian-bank-steal-n10-billion-818-accounts-frozen-zenith-upgrade/ > accessed 11 July 2025.

    [7] Joonas Jouko, ‘The Relationship Between Cybercrime and Unemployment in Nigeria’ < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388659828_The_Relationship_Between_Cybercrime_and_Unemployment_in_Nigeria > accessed 11 July 2025.

  • OAL Proud to Support Groundbreaking Constitutional Amendment Bills

    OAL is proud to announce that we are currently providing legal advisory services to the National Assembly on critical constitutional amendments. We are particularly privileged to advise on groundbreaking constitutional reform bills that will fundamentally transform Nigeria’s governance architecture.

    Three transformative constitutional amendment bills have been developed that address critical gaps in Nigeria’s democratic framework:

    1. Environmental Rights Bill (Sixth Alteration) 2025: This revolutionary legislation consecrates and elevates environmental rights as a constitutional right under Chapter IV of the Constitution by establishing justiciable rights to a clean, safe, and healthy environment with comprehensive judicial remedies. The bill integrates environmental protection within the right to life and human dignity. In addition, it provides for enforcement and procedural mechanisms for the protection of environmental rights and judicial remedies.
    2. Local Government Reform Bill (Sixth Alteration) 2025: This comprehensive reform bill prohibits caretaker committees, mandates democratically elected councils with enhanced qualification requirements (first degree or equivalent), and establishes robust legislative councils with clear tenure limits (4-year terms, maximum of two terms) and separation of powers for local governments.
    3. Institutional Democracy Strengthening Proposal: Based on the South African model, this bill aims to constitutionally protect democratic institutions like INEC, NJC, Code of Conduct Bureau from executive interference whilst ensuring operational independence, security of tenure, and accountability frameworks to the National Assembly.

    OAL applauds the exceptional visionary leadership demonstrated in these constitutional reform initiatives, which show constitutional statesmanship through a deep understanding of Nigeria’s governance challenges and practical solutions rooted in comparative constitutional analysis. The Environmental Rights Bill positions Nigeria at the forefront of global environmental constitutionalism, whilst the Local Government Reform Bill demonstrates a commitment to deepening democratic culture at the foundation level, ensuring democracy works for ordinary Nigerians in their communities. The institutional democracy strengthening proposal shows understanding that protecting democratic institutions from executive interference is fundamental to consolidating Nigeria’s democracy and ensuring these institutions can function independently and effectively serve the Nigerian people.

  • The Liability of Retired Professionals when Rendering Professional Consultation

    The Liability of Retired Professionals when Rendering Professional Consultation

    Every year, thousands of professionals retire from active service, either upon reaching the statutory retirement age of 65 or after 35 years of pensionable service. These individuals often exit formal employment with a wealth of experience acquired over decades of research, teaching, mentoring, and industry leadership. Their expertise represents a rich and largely untapped resource that does not become stale only by their retirement, especially in the fields of academics, medicine, and other fields.

    Upon retirement, professionals typically lose active membership in their regulatory bodies such as the NMA, ASUU, CORBON, and NBA (if without a valid practising certificate). As a result, they are no longer subject to the statutory protections, disciplinary regimes, or professional standards set by governing laws like the Legal Practitioners Act, Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, or sector-specific regulations. Consequently, retired professionals are no longer legally bound by, nor shielded under, these regulatory frameworks.

    Active professionals usually carry professional indemnity insurance to protect clients against negligence. However, retired professionals are generally not insured unless they have a run-off policy, leaving any advice they give potentially uncovered. Without insurance, regulatory oversight, or a valid license, the risk to those relying on their advice is significantly increased.

    From the foregoing, therefore, it can be deduced that while retirees possess valuable knowledge, there is a dilemma in consulting them for professional advice and services. On the one hand, there is immense benefit in tapping into this repository of expertise, while on the other, the lack of safeguards means advice from retirees carries no institutional guarantee. It is therefore unsafe both legally and practically to rely on retired professionals for expert advice without qualification, insurance, or oversight, regardless of their prior eminence or accomplishments.

    It is on this backdrop that this Article addresses the legal consequences and potential liabilities faced by retired professionals who, after ceasing formal practice, continue to offer professional advice. Therefore, the central legal issue addressed herewith is to what extent a retired professional, no longer licensed or affiliated with a professional regulatory body be held liable for the advice or consultation they provide. This issue becomes very critical because of the legal safeguards built around professional practice, particularly concerning accountability, insurance, and recourse in the event of negligence or malpractice.

    In Tort, a person who holds themselves out as possessing expertise and who gives advice upon which another reasonably relies may be held liable in negligence or contract, even if retired. The test is not their employment status, but whether a duty of care was owed, that duty was breached, and the breach resulted in damage.

    This was famously recognised in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, a landmark English tort law case that established the concept of liability for pure economic loss resulting from negligent misstatement, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. The facts of the case are that a bank provided a reference about a company, which was relied upon by the suing party to their detriment. The court found that a duty of care could exist in such a situation.

    This position has been affirmed in Nigerian jurisprudence. Even where no fee is charged, and even in casual or social settings, liability may arise under negligent misstatement, particularly where the recipient acts upon the advice to their detriment. Courts will consider whether it was reasonable for the retiree to allow reliance and whether the advice was presented as authoritative.

    In Contract, if a retired professional enters into a consultancy or advisory arrangement, whether formal or informal, and charges a fee, they assume contractual obligations. The standard remains that of a reasonably competent practitioner, and failure to meet that standard may result in liability.

    In conclusion, it is trite that while retirement does not legally extinguish a professional’s liability, it removes the institutional structures that regulate and support professional accountability. A retired expert may still be held liable in tort or contract, but without licensure or professional affiliation, they and those who rely on them do so at their own risk. Anyone who relies on advice from a retired professional does so with limited recourse and in the absence of institutional safeguards.