OAL | Leading Law Firm in Nigeria

Blog

  • GOLDSTARLINE LTD & ANOR V MASTERS ENERGY COMM.TRADING LTD: OAL Secures Victory in Admiralty Case on Statute of Limitation

    OAL secured a significant victory in the recent case of Goldstarline v. Master Energy at the Federal High Court. The Court upheld our preliminary objection and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the admiralty matter was statute-barred under Section 18 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.

    The Judgement

    The Court carried out a comprehensive review of the arguments put forth and ultimately dismissed the suit. The court agreed with our position that the claim had been filed beyond the allowable time frame. Additionally, the Court rejected other issues raised by the plaintiff, including questions of locus standi and procedural competence, which further makes it clear that strict adherence to statutory timelines in admiralty matters is vital and non-negotiable.

    Conclusion

    This victory not only protected our client from unjust liability but also highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in upholding the integrity of maritime law. It serves as a strong reminder to stakeholders across the maritime industry, including ship-owners, charterers, and freight forwarders, about the necessity of operating within legal timelines. Additionally, they are strongly encouraged to seek legal guidance by experts in maritime and admiralty matters.

  • Lawsuit Against Jennifer Lopez for Posting her Pictures: Copyright Lessons for Celebrities, Creatives and the General Public

    Lawsuit Against Jennifer Lopez for Posting her Pictures: Copyright Lessons for Celebrities, Creatives and the General Public

    Technology has amplified the way content is produced, distributed, and consumed globally. From Instagram reels to YouTube snippets and TikTok trends, it has provided worldwide access to creative works. However, it has also significantly increased instances of copyright infringement, particularly in digital spaces where content fuels brand awareness, innovation, and income.

    Nobody is excluded from this global phenomenon; only those who are legally literate have been able to survive by protecting their creation, while those without legal knowledge pay the price regardless of their social status. A good example of this is the latest lawsuit Jennifer Lopez faces.

    This article aims to unpack the intellectual property rights behind ownership and personal rights from the situation, enunciating protective mechanisms for creatives, celebrities and the general public.

    Background: The Case Against Jennifer Lopez

    Jennifer Lopez, an American singer and actress, was sued for copyright infringement on January 5, 2025. The lawsuit was not for a violation of copyright relating to a new song or film, but for two photographs she released on social media that were massively reshared by fans and celebrity websites, which, as it turns out, have a disputed intellectual property right.

    Although Jennifer Lopez was the one in the pictures, the photographers, Edwin Blanco and the media agency Backgrid USA, asserted they owned the copyright to the images. They brought the action against Lopez for promoting fashion brands and designers with which she is affiliated, using the pictures for which they own the copyright.

    Under U.S. Copyright law, just as in Nigeria, the photographer, not the subject of the picture, owns the copyright of the pictures taken. This is according to Section 28 of the Nigerian Copyright Act. The situation will however be different if the photographer is commissioned by the individual to take the photograph, as the copyright is intended by the parties, pursuant to their agreement to vest in such an individual, the latter situation is given statutory backing by Section 28 (3) of the Nigerian Copyright Act.

    Also read: HIGH COPYRIGHT STAKES – The Billion Naira Copyright Dispute OVER Sinach’s “Way Maker”: A Lesson for Creatives

    Ms Lopez allegedly violated the above rights by using the disputed pictures without authorisation from the alleged owners of the copyright or without paying a licensing fee. The photographers, alleged owners of the intellectual property rights in the picture, have therefore sued her for up to $150,000 per photo.

    Ms Lopez is not the first celebrity to be sued for uploading photos of themselves, which allegedly breached the intellectual property rights of photographers/ media companies. Gigi Hadid, Justin Bieber, and Khloé Kardashian have all faced similar lawsuits.

    This repeated occurrence is simply not a celebrity mishap, rather, it is a painful reminder of the lack of understanding of copyright and intellectual property rights and how important it is to understand and respect copyright law in the digital age.

    Key Lessons

    1. Being in a Photo Does not Mean You Own It.

    It may be rational to assume that because Jennifer Lopez is the subject of the photograph, hence, she should own it. However, this is not the way copyright law works. The individual who takes the photograph owns the copyright, unless the photographer and the subject in the photograph sign a work-for-hire contract or the latter takes a license from the former to use the photograph.

    Key takeaway: If you did not take the photo or commission it with explicit rights transfer, it is not legally yours to use, regardless of whether it features your face, your body, or your event. Before you post, always ask permission from the creator.

    1. Social Media Is Not a Copyright-Free Zone

    Social media has become a part of our everyday life, it only follows that laws are made to protect the intellectual property of individuals. However, many people believe that content on social media is free, and there is no enforceable ownership of such content. This cannot be further from the truth, accessible content is not necessarily legally free for usage.

    Key takeaway: Before reposting or remixing a video, photo, or song, confirm you have the legal right to do so. Although social media channels are public, copyright still governs what is posted there.

    1. Avoid Using What is not Yours for Commercial Use

    Jennifer Lopez was not just posting for fun, she allegedly used the images to promote fashion brands. That commercial angle significantly increased the seriousness of the alleged infringement and potentially, the accruable damages to be paid for wrong usage.

    Key takeaway: Using someone else’s content in a business context, whether to market products, build a brand, or monetise engagement, requires proper licensing or permissions from the owners of such content. Personal use may sometimes fall under the “fair use” exception, but commercial use rarely does.

    Also read: Learn the Rules of Online Engagement: Introduction to Defamation, Privacy, and Cyberbullying

    1. Ignorance Is Not a Legal Excuse

    Many people assume that their lack of knowledge of the law will shield them from its consequences. However, ignorance is no defence in copyright cases, just as in other legal matters. Everyone, including individuals and businesses, is expected to understand and comply with the law.

    Key takeaway: Consult with a legal expert on the provision of copyright and intellectual property law.

    1. Credit is not Permission

    A common myth is that giving credit to the original creator protects you from copyright infringement. While it is ethical and respectful to credit artists, credit alone does not override the need for express legal permission to use the content of another person. An individual can still be sued for interference with intellectual property rights despite giving ‘credits’ in the alleged infringement.

    Key takeaway: Tagging or mentioning the creator does not substitute for licensing or written consent. Always ask before using content, especially if you plan to commercially benefit from such usage.

    1. Licensing Is Cheaper Than Lawsuits

    Jennifer Lopez is being sued for $150,000 per photo. She might have avoided spending by simply obtaining a usage license. In many cases, a license costs far less than the penalties of copyright infringement.

    Key takeaway: Paying for a license may seem unnecessary, especially when you find content online for free. However, that small fee could save you hundreds of thousands in legal damages.

    Conclusion

    Knowledge of copyright and intellectual property rights law is not an option in the digital age of content production, where content of all types is money; it is rather a necessity. These lessons apply to everyone, whether you are a global superstar, a freelance photographer, a business owner, or a Nigerian TikToker.

  • Empowering Creators: Analysing Nigeria’s Collective Management Regulations 2025

    Empowering Creators: Analysing Nigeria’s Collective Management Regulations 2025

    The Collective Management Regulations, 2025 (S.I. No. 17), published in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette on January 28th, 2025, represents a significant advancement in Nigeria’s copyright ecosystem. Promulgated under the authority vested in the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) by the Copyright Act, 2022, these regulations establish a comprehensive legal framework governing the operation, accountability, and governance of Collective Management Organisations (CMOs).[1] A CMO is defined within the regulation as “an organisation representing copyright owners, which has as its principal objectives the negotiating and granting of licenses, collecting and distributing of royalties in respect of copyright works.”

    While the Copyright Act, 2022 laid the groundwork for CMOs, the Collective Management Regulations, 2025 are designed to enhance governance and accountability, thereby better serving the operational needs of these vital organisations within Nigeria. Specifically, these regulations aim to improve the structures and transparency surrounding the collection and distribution of royalties to rights holders, such as musicians and authors.

    This regulatory initiative is part of a broader reform effort within Nigeria’s intellectual property (IP) legal framework, as emphasised by Dr. John Asein, Director-General of the NCC. This comprehensive reform includes legislation like the Proceeds of Crime (Designation of Nigerian Copyright), demonstrating a commitment to robust IP enforcement and the realisation of associated economic benefits. The Collective Management Regulations directly address long-standing concerns levelled against CMOs in Nigeria, including issues pertaining to delayed royalty payments, inadequate financial transparency, and internal governance disputes.[2]

    This article critically reviews the Collective Management Regulations, 2025, highlighting key innovations and their potential impact on Nigeria’s creative industries. The analysis focuses on the regulations’ structure, purpose, legal and institutional implications, and overall contribution to a more effective and equitable copyright environment.

    1. Purpose and Legal Foundation

    The objective, as stated in Regulation 1, is to establish a legal structure for the approval, membership, management, and responsibilities of CMOs. These organisations serve as intermediaries that manage the rights of copyright holders, particularly authors, musicians, filmmakers, and other creatives, ensuring they are compensated when their works are exploited.

    This regulation is grounded in multiple sections of the Copyright Act, 2022 (notably sections 78, 88, and 97), showing legislative intent to formalise and professionalise the collective management space. By providing specific conditions for the grant, revocation, and renewal of approval, the regulations ensure a robust system for evaluating and monitoring CMOs.

    Also read: Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Rights in Nigeria: Lessons for the Creative Industry

     2. Regulatory Structure and Governance

    The arrangement of regulations (1–36)[3] covers a wide range of institutional and operational concerns. Noteworthy highlights include:

    1. Grant and Revocation of Approval (Regulations 3–4): These lay down stringent documentation requirements and detailed criteria for evaluating CMOs. Particularly laudable is the requirement for the signed consent of at least 100 right owners, which fosters legitimacy and discourages sham CMOs.
    2. Renewal Conditions (Regulation 5): The renewal of approval is contingent upon compliance with regulatory and financial reporting obligations, promoting accountability.
    3. Governance and Internal Supervision (Regulations 17–19): These provisions reflect global best practices, emphasising transparency, board oversight, and conflict-of-interest avoidance

    3. Member and User Protections

    The regulations take significant steps to protect the interests of both rights owners (members) and users:

    • Eligibility and Membership Rights (Regulations 6–11)[4]: By mandating equitable treatment and clearly defining membership rights, the regulations empower creatives to actively participate in the management of their rights.
    • Tariff Setting and Licensing (Regulations 14–15): These ensure that CMOs operate transparently in negotiations with users and that tariffs are fair, addressing longstanding complaints of arbitrary fee structures.
    • Distribution and Financial Integrity (Regulations 24–25): These rules on revenue distribution and deductions ensure that CMOs do not exploit their intermediary position to the detriment of members.

    Also read: AI’s Legal Frontier: How the Latest Gen AI Breakthroughs are Revolutionising R&D and Intellectual Property Management

    4. Enhanced Accountability and Transparency Standards:

    Perhaps the most progressive aspects of the Collective Management Regulations, 2025 (CMR 2025) are the stringent financial and data management obligations outlined in Regulations 20-23 and 27. By introducing measures such as:

    • Split and Holding Accounts:
    • Annual Reporting:
    • Audit Requirements:

    The regulations significantly reduce the potential for mismanagement. This strengthened framework is further reinforced by Regulation 26, which mandates a clear complaint and dispute resolution procedure, thereby aligning Nigerian CMO practices with international standards of corporate governance.[5]

    These rigorous governance and financial accountability requirements directly address historical issues of mismanagement and a lack of transparency within CMOs. Section 22 of the CMR 2025 mandates that CMOs maintain accounts consistent with standard accounting practices, thereby enabling and improving transparency. Furthermore, the regulations provide for consequences; should any CMO be found in breach of the provisions, the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is empowered to issue queries, directives, or sanctions in line with the regulations. Regular audits, conducted either by the NCC or independent bodies, may be required, with penalties for non-compliance ranging from license suspension and written cautions to disqualification from holding office within a CMO. This multi-layered approach to accountability signifies a significant step towards fostering trust and efficiency within the Nigerian collective rights management system.[6]

    Also read: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: How to Protect and Leverage Your IP Assets and Brands

    5. Ethics, Sanctions, and Enforcement

    The regulations not only promote compliance but also incorporate a credible enforcement regime:

    1. Prohibition of Unethical Practices (Reg. 28) and
    2. Sanctions and Enforcement (Reg. 31–32) empower the Nigerian Copyright Commission to act decisively against errant CMOs.

    Also, transitional provisions (Reg. 35) ensure that pre-existing CMOs are brought into compliance, preventing regulatory arbitrage.

    6. Streamlined Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

    The regulations establish formalised, time-bound processes for resolving disputes between CMOs, rights holders, and users, reducing reliance on lengthy court battles. A dispute resolution panel can now be made available, and the dispute referred to the dispute resolution panel.[7] Also, building on Section 89 of the Copyright Act 2022, which provides for an NCC Dispute Resolution Panel, the regulations set specific timelines (e.g., 60 days, similar to Singapore’s 2023 CMO Regulations) for resolving issues like royalty disputes or licensing disagreements.[8]

    Also read: Securing Creative Assets and Intellectual Property: Legal Measures Against Digital Piracy

    7. Empowerment of Rights Holders

    The regulations strengthen rights holders’ ability to choose, monitor, and exit CMOs, promoting competition and creator-centric governance.  Rights holders may freely select their CMO or manage rights independently, overturning the restrictive single-CMO policy (pre-2017) that favoured COSON.[9] CMOs are now encouraged to provide clear membership agreements and royalty distribution policies, ensuring transparency, as recommended by the EU’s Collective Rights Management Directive (2014/26/EU). The regulations allow rights holders to challenge royalty distribution criteria, as established in Green Light v. Copyright Society (2021).[10]

    Critical Evaluation and Recommendations[11]

    While the Collective Management Regulations 2025 are commendably comprehensive and provide a much-needed framework for a sector previously plagued by opacity, certain practical issues require attention:

    1. Capacity of the Nigerian Copyright Commission: For effective enforcement, the Commission must be adequately staffed and resourced.
    2. Judicial Oversight: There is little mention of recourse to judicial review in cases of revocation or non-renewal of approval. Future iterations should ensure that affected parties have clear access to redress mechanisms.
    3. Awareness and Training: Many copyright owners in Nigeria operate in informal economies and may not fully understand their rights. Implementing these regulations successfully will require widespread sensitisation campaigns.

    Conclusion 

    The Collective Management Regulations 2025 mark a transformative advancement for Nigeria’s copyright ecosystem, introducing critical innovations that modernise the CMO system. These include enhanced accountability mechanisms, provisions for digital licensing, streamlined dispute resolution processes, greater empowerment for rights holders, improved frameworks for cross-border royalty collection, a focus on technology-driven operations, broader sector coverage, and integration with broader intellectual property enforcement efforts. By addressing historical challenges and aligning with global best practices, these reforms hold the potential to significantly improve the earnings and rights protection of Nigerian creatives, fostering investor confidence and bolstering the country’s reputation within global intellectual property circles.

    Successful implementation, however, hinges on several key factors. Robust enforcement by the NCC, proactive engagement with all stakeholders, and sustained investment in digital infrastructure are crucial to realising the regulations’ full potential. The Collective Management Regulations 2025 should be viewed not as a static end point, but as a dynamic instrument for strengthening Nigeria’s cultural economy and fostering a thriving creative environment in the digital age. Institutional transparency and ongoing stakeholder education will be vital to ensuring that the regulations serve their intended purpose and contribute to a more equitable and prosperous future for Nigerian artists and creators.

    References

    [1] Section 1 Collective Management Regulation 2025

    [2] Section 1 Collective Management Regulation 2025

    [3] Collective Management Regulation 2025

    [4] Ibid

    [5] Section 22 Collective Management Regulation 2025

    [6] Section 31 Collective Management Regulations 2025

    [7] Section 90 Copyright Act 2022

    [8]https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/copyright/1609106/an-overview-of-collective-management-organisations-in-nigeria

    [9] Ibid.

    [10]https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article-abstract/70/11/1102/6263471?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    [11]https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/copyright/1609106/an-overview-of-collective-management-organisations-in-nigeria

  • The Case for Critical Minerals Legal and Policy Reform in Nigeria

    The Case for Critical Minerals Legal and Policy Reform in Nigeria

    As the global economy pivots toward clean energy and advanced technologies, nations with critical mineral reserves find themselves at a strategic crossroads. The recent US-Ukraine partnership, formalised through a joint investment fund in April 2025, demonstrates how countries can leverage their mineral wealth, including titanium, lithium, and uranium, to attract international investment and drive reconstruction efforts. This partnership underscores a critical reality: in today’s economy, mineral resources are not just commodities but instruments of geopolitical and economic power.

    Nigeria possesses similarly vast critical mineral reserves, yet the country has largely failed to capitalise on this strategic advantage. Despite holding significant deposits of lithium, tantalite, tin, and other minerals essential to modern technology, Nigeria’s mining sector contributes less than 1% to GDP, a stark contrast to countries that have transformed their mineral wealth into economic prosperity. The root cause lies in Nigeria’s fragmented and outdated legal framework, which fails to provide the regulatory clarity, investment incentives, and governance structures necessary to attract serious capital or ensure sustainable development.

    The cost of inaction is mounting. While other resource-rich nations are securing partnerships and building value-added industries, Nigeria risks becoming a mere exporter of raw materials, missing the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the global clean energy transition. This article examines Nigeria’s untapped critical mineral potential, identifies the specific legal and policy barriers preventing its realisation, and proposes a comprehensive reform agenda that could position Nigeria as a key player in the global critical minerals market.

    Understanding Critical Minerals and Nigeria’s Endowment

    Critical minerals are natural resources that hold substantial economic importance yet face potential supply risks due to geopolitical factors, limited production sources, or concentration in specific regions. These minerals are vital components in various modern applications, including renewable energy technologies, defence systems, electronics, and telecommunications, with few viable substitutes for their unique properties. Examples include rare earth elements essential for magnets in wind turbines and electric vehicles, lithium and cobalt for batteries, platinum group metals for catalytic converters, gallium and indium for semiconductors, titanium and niobium for aerospace applications, and manganese for steel production. Countries typically maintain and update their lists of critical minerals based on their specific economic requirements and vulnerability assessments, with these designations evolving alongside technological advancements, shifting geopolitical landscapes, and changing market dynamics.

    Nigeria is endowed with substantial reserves of globally significant critical minerals that position the country as a potential key player in the global energy transition supply chain. The country’s critical mineral wealth includes lithium deposits in Nasarawa, Kogi, and Kwara states, which are essential for electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy storage systems. The Jos Plateau region hosts valuable columbite-tantalite deposits containing tantalum and niobium, minerals crucial for manufacturing electronic components, superalloys, and specialised steel products. This same region also contains notable tin deposits, while promising rare earth element occurrences, though not fully explored, have been identified across the country – these elements are indispensable for producing permanent magnets used in wind turbines and electric vehicles. Additionally, Nigeria possesses graphite resources across several states, a mineral vital for battery anodes, lubricants, and numerous industrial applications that support modern manufacturing and energy technologies.

    Current Governance Framework for Critical Minerals in Nigeria

    Despite Nigeria’s rich endowment of critical minerals, the country’s approach to governing these resources is embedded within its broader mining sector framework, with limited specific provisions for these strategic materials. The Nigerian Constitution 1999 and the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act (2007) establish state ownership of all mineral resources and provide the fundamental legal framework for mineral exploration and exploitation. The Nigerian Minerals and Mining Regulations (2011) and the National Minerals and Metals Policy (2008) set strategic guidelines, technical standards, and operational requirements for the sustainable development of Nigeria’s solid minerals and metals sector. The policy outlines important governance pillars, including transparent licensing procedures, comprehensive geological mapping, and fiscal incentives to encourage local mineral processing. However, this framework did not adequately address the specific governance needs of critical minerals. It lacked a robust classification framework or any mechanism for risk-based prioritisation of these resources.

    The governance structure includes the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development (MMSD), Nigerian Geological Survey Agency (NGSA), Mining Cadastre Office (MCO), and Council of Nigerian Mining Engineers and Geoscientists (COMEG). While these institutions provide general oversight, they lack mandates specifically tailored to critical minerals management. Recent initiatives like the National Policy on Solid Minerals (2019), Presidential Artisanal Mining Initiative, and the Roadmap for the Growth and Development of the Nigerian Mining Industry have begun to recognise the importance of critical minerals, but implementation remains incomplete.

    The existing legal and policy regime suffers from several critical shortcomings that hinder effective governance of these strategic resources. Most notably, there is an absence of comprehensive critical minerals classification, with no comprehensive legal definition or list of critical minerals specific to Nigeria and a lack of differential treatment for critical versus non-critical minerals. This classification gap is compounded by weak implementation and enforcement, evident through limited capacity to enforce existing regulations and significant illegal mining and smuggling of critical minerals.

    Data limitations present another significant challenge. The country faces incomplete geological data on critical mineral deposits and limited understanding of its full resource potential. This knowledge gap undermines strategic planning and inhibits investor confidence. Additionally, value chain development is hindered by minimal legal frameworks for promoting domestic processing and limited incentives for value addition within Nigeria.

    Environmental and social safeguards are also insufficient, providing inadequate protections for communities impacted by critical minerals mining and insufficient environmental standards specific to critical minerals extraction. The investment framework lacks targeted incentives for critical minerals development and has insufficient mechanisms to attract the technology and expertise needed to develop these resources responsibly and efficiently.

    Global Context and Proposed Legal and Policy Reforms

    To address these challenges effectively, it is essential to examine how other countries are approaching critical minerals governance. Global trends in this field provide important context for Nigeria’s reform efforts. Countries worldwide are moving beyond traditional mining regulations toward more strategic frameworks that recognise the unique importance of these resources. National security integration has become paramount, with countries developing strategic reserves and implementing supply chain protection measures. Supply chain resilience features domestic processing requirements and anti-concentration measures to prevent overdependence on single sources.

    Sustainability integration is increasingly important in global mineral governance, with ESG compliance requirements and carbon footprint regulations becoming standard. Indigenous and community rights are receiving greater attention through strengthened consent requirements and mandatory benefit-sharing mechanisms. Public-private partnerships are emerging through co-investment models and risk-sharing frameworks that distribute the burden of development.

    Drawing from these global best practices and addressing Nigeria’s specific challenges, several key reforms should be considered to protect and maximise the value of the country’s critical mineral resources:

    First, Nigeria should establish a dedicated critical minerals legal framework by developing and enacting a Critical Minerals Act that specifically addresses the unique challenges and opportunities of these resources. The country needs to create a formal, science-based classification system for critical minerals relevant to Nigeria’s development needs and establish differential regulatory treatment based on mineral criticality.

    Second, institutional capacity must be strengthened by creating a dedicated Critical Minerals Agency or Department within MMSD. This specialised unit would focus exclusively on critical minerals governance, ensuring these strategic resources receive the attention they deserve. A multi-stakeholder Critical Minerals Council should also be established to coordinate policy across government and industry. Additionally, specialised training programmes for regulators and inspectors would ensure proper oversight of this specialised sector.

    Third, Nigeria must enhance its geological knowledge through a comprehensive National Critical Minerals Mapping Initiative to fully understand its resource potential. This would address the data limitations identified earlier and provide the foundation for strategic decision-making. Investment in modern geological survey technologies is essential for this effort, as is establishing public-private partnerships for exploration that can bring in technical expertise and funding.

    Fourth, value chain integration policies are needed to move Nigeria beyond being merely a source of raw materials. This should include local processing requirements for critical minerals to capture more value domestically. Fiscal incentives for downstream activities would encourage investment in processing facilities, while creating special economic zones focused on critical minerals processing could fast-track industrial development.

    Beyond these four core reforms, complementary measures are also needed. The investment framework requires specific attention through targeted incentives for critical minerals projects and risk-sharing mechanisms for strategic minerals development. Environmental and social governance must be strengthened with specific standards for critical minerals operations and enhanced community development agreement requirements. Combating illegal mining through stronger penalties and formalisation pathways for artisanal miners is crucial to ensure that Nigeria’s critical minerals benefit the treasury rather than shadow economies. Finally, international partnerships through bilateral agreements with technology-manufacturing countries would help position Nigeria as a preferred supplier in global value chains.

    Conclusion

    The global race for critical minerals presents Nigeria with a historic opportunity to transform its abundant geological resources into drivers of economic development. By implementing thoughtful legal and policy reforms as outlined above, the country can move beyond being merely a source of raw materials to become a key player in global critical mineral value chains. These reforms should be guided by several key principles: a strategic vision that recognises critical minerals as national assets essential for future development; sustainability approaches ensuring extraction benefits present and future generations; value addition strategies that capture processing value within Nigeria; community benefit frameworks that ensure local populations share in resource wealth; and global integration efforts that position Nigeria as a responsible supplier in international supply chains.

    By implementing comprehensive legal and policy reforms focused on critical minerals, Nigeria can secure not just the minerals themselves but also the foundation for technological advancement, economic diversification, and sustainable development in the decades ahead. The stakes could not be higher – these resources represent the building blocks of the 21st century economy. As global demand surges and competition intensifies, countries with forward-looking legal and policy frameworks will be best positioned to benefit from the critical minerals revolution. Nigeria has the geological endowment—now it needs the governance framework to match.

  • How Ship Management Can Contribute to Nigeria’s Economy

    How Ship Management Can Contribute to Nigeria’s Economy

    Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and most populous nation, has over 853 kilometres of coastline and access to global trade routes. Despite this advantage, the contribution of the country’s maritime industry to its GDP is still limited.

    Analysts project that the sector could generate over $44 billion each year if properly developed. However, a persistent gap has prevented this potential from being realised.

    Mismanagement is the major Issue

    Nigeria’s issue is not a lack of ships, but how they are managed. Although Nigeria owns a fleet of over 4,000 flagged vessels and more than 1,000 cabotage vessels, shipowners are compelled to spend between $25 million and $30 million annually on dry-docking services in neighbouring countries. This is largely due to the absence of functional facilities and limited access to funding within the country.

    Even when infrastructure is available, it often remains underutilised. For example, the N50 billion modular floating dock purchased by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) in 2018 has been left idle, representing a public investment that incurs costs without providing any economic return.

    As a result of these systemic inefficiencies, Nigeria reportedly loses approximately $147.8 million every year to foreign shipyards in docking fees, repairs, and other related costs. (a revenue that could otherwise circulate within the domestic economy).

    This situation highlights the urgent need for strategic investment in ship management and repair facilities within Nigeria. By revitalising domestic shipyards and ensuring effective management of maritime assets, Nigeria could retain a significant amount of revenue that is currently lost to foreign economies, create job opportunities, and substantially increase its GDP.

    Can Ship Management Break the Cycle?

    Yes. At a recent breakfast meeting hosted by Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) in partnership with Captain Nicholas Bernard, Managing Director of NBC Maritime Ltd, ship management was presented as a viable business rescue model, particularly for distressed maritime assets. The Nigerian ship management company showcased how dormant vessels can be rehabilitated and transformed into revenue-generating assets through structured and professional ship management.

    With over 33 successful projects under their belt, NBC Maritime provides a clear example of how third-party managers can introduce structure, compliance, profitability, and safety to the maritime sector.

    Owning a ship in Nigeria is a capital-intensive venture. Fluctuating exchange rates, high-interest loans, maintenance failures, and poor operational capabilities have left many vessels idle or in distress. Additionally, banks that often serve as financiers are burdened with non-performing loans on vessels they cannot legally or operationally recover.

    Through effective ship management, shipowners and banks can outsource the complexities of daily operations while retaining ownership and enjoying a consistent income stream. This approach can lead to significant economic transformation because professionally managed ships can re-enter trade routes, generate revenue, create jobs for skilled Nigerian workers, pay taxes and port fees, and attract further investment.

    Ship Management: Definition, Function and Value

    Ship management is the business of running ships professionally and profitably on behalf of ship owners. It involves handling day-to-day operations, including technical maintenance, crew hiring, regulatory compliance, insurance, voyage planning, and financial oversight.

    Beyond these routine operations, ship management is a strategic economic function. When vessels are well-managed, they stay compliant, generate consistent earnings, and retain their value. Conversely, poorly managed vessels can deteriorate and become financial burdens for owners, banks, and even the nation. In Nigeria, ship management has become a crucial commercial tool that transforms idle or distressed vessels into productive assets. These vessels can then engage in trade, create jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to the country’s GDP.

    This approach allows shipowners to maintain ownership while outsourcing the complexities of operations. The outcome is greater sustainability and, more importantly, profitability.

    Economic Contributions of Ship Management to National Growth

    ●       Activating Idle Assets: Each abandoned ship represents a loss and a wasted investment. Effective ship management can restore these vessels to commercial use, enhancing trade volume and port activity in both global and regional markets. This revitalisation increases customs revenue, port fees, and foreign exchange inflow.

    ●       Creating Jobs: A single managed vessel requires a crew, engineers, compliance officers, insurance representatives, and port agents. Each vessel thus becomes a significant engine for job creation.

    ●       Building Investors’ Confidence: When banks see that vessels are being managed by experts, they are more likely to finance ship purchases or extend credit. This confidence arises from improved oversight, reduced risk, and the assurance of revenue flow.

    ●       Boosting Exports: Well-managed vessels help to reduce shipping delays and costs, making Nigerian exports, such as oil, agricultural products, and solid minerals, more competitive in the global market.

    Why Banks and Investors Should Take Notice

    Banks in Nigeria have historically been reluctant to finance vessel acquisitions, citing concerns over risk and a lack of capacity. However, the real issue lies not with the asset itself, but with management. Professional ship management significantly reduces the risks associated with vessel investments. When vessels are left in the hands of poorly trained or overburdened owners, even the best loans can become problematic.

    By mandating professional management for financed vessels, banks can achieve several benefits: they can reduce non-performing maritime loans, extend the asset life cycles, and gain improved oversight through transparent reporting and data analytics. It’s not just about financing more vessels; it’s about effectively managing them to generate revenue, repay loans, and contribute to economic growth.

    Conclusion: A Future Within Reach

    Imagine a Nigeria where every vessel is active and generating income, every maritime loan is recoverable, and every port serves as a hub of trade, skill, and revenue. This vision is not a fantasy; it is possible through effective and efficient ship management.

    Maritime liabilities can be converted into national assets through professional ship management, not as a safety net, but as a growth strategy and for commercial profitability. Professional ship management is the key to unlocking over $44 billion in projected annual value. It is a strategic tool that transforms idle vessels into national assets, distressed loans into recoverable income, and joblessness into entrepreneurial opportunities.

    To shipowners, banks, regulators, and policymakers: now is the time to move decisively away from vessel abandonment, overseas spending, and unmanaged risks.

     

  • OAL Secures Victory for Female Footballer in Professional Female Football Club

    In January 2024, a female footballer, Priscilla M, playing in the Nigerian Women’s Football League faced a major employment challenge. She was formally engaged by Rivers Angels Football Club, one of the most prominent female teams in the womens league, however unfortunately the club terminated her employment contract prematurely. 

    Our Sports, Entertainment, and Technology team, led by Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya, Seun Akinade, and Olabisi Afolabi, filed a petition on her behalf and appeared before the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) Players Status Committee.  

    The Breakthrough

    The NFF Players Status Committee eventually ruled that the termination was indeed without just cause.  Additionally, the Committee mandated Rivers Angels Football Club to pay a fine for the wrongful termination.

    Conclusion

    The case reinforces our commitment to protecting the rights of athletes and professionals in the Sports space and ensuring no player is left behind at their most vulnerable moments.

    This is a clarion call to all stakeholders in the football industry: Football Clubs, Players, Administrators, Football Agents, etc, to acquaint themselves with the laws that regulate the industry and abide by the same. Additionally, they are strongly encouraged to seek legal guidance by experts in sports law matters.

  • Analysis of the English FA Rule K, The Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023; Making Sports Disputes Resolution Less of a Headache in Nigeria

    Analysis of the English FA Rule K, The Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023; Making Sports Disputes Resolution Less of a Headache in Nigeria

    Sports disputes arise more often than those outside the industry realise and can take on many forms, from the complex and contentious, such as doping and integrity disputes, to the more straightforward disputes, such as employment issues. Just as in other business industries, access to justice and well-structured resolution mechanisms must be implemented in order to maintain the integrity of the sport as well as maintain good relationships between stakeholders.

    Borrowing a leaf from the English system, the English FA Rule K is a fantastic example of how an industry can self-regulate and handle internal disputes amongst all the spectrum of its stakeholders using the instrumentality of arbitration. In Nigeria, on the other hand, the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 is the principal legislative instrument for the adoption of the ADR mechanism for the resolution of disputes in all sectors of the economy. This article analyses how the sports sector in Nigeria can draw inspiration from the application of the English FA Rule K, applying the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 to achieve a structured dispute resolution process within the sports industry.

    What is FA Rule K?

    The FA Rule K sets out a detailed arbitration process specifically designed for resolving disputes in English football. It ensures that all conflicts between participants, including players, managers, and clubs, are handled through a structured and impartial arbitration system. This rule has set a high standard for dispute resolution in sports, not just in England but globally, given its reputation for promoting fairness and efficiency.[1]

    The Nigerian Arbitration and Mediation Act offers a comprehensive framework for arbitration and mediation across various sectors, including sports. This act underscores the need for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms that can address the unique challenges faced by the sports community in Nigeria.

    In exploring these frameworks, we will examine how the principles and practices from the United Kingdom can be adapted to enhance the resolution of sports disputes in Nigeria. By learning from the UK’s experience, Nigeria can develop more effective and swift ADR processes that uphold the integrity of the sport and foster harmonious relationships among its stakeholders.

    BACKGROUND TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FA RULE K IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

    The introduction of FA Rule K was spurred by a need to establish a clear and efficient arbitration process for resolving disputes within English football. Prior to its introduction, disputes were often handled through traditional legal channels, which could be time-consuming and costly. The FA recognised the importance of having a specialised mechanism to address conflicts quickly and fairly, ensuring that the sport’s integrity and smooth functioning were maintained.

    FA Rule K was designed to provide a structured arbitration process that would be accessible, impartial, and binding on all parties involved. This rule aimed to reduce the burden on the courts, expedite dispute resolution, and provide a consistent approach to handling conflicts in football. By implementing this rule, the FA sought to promote fairness, transparency, and efficiency in the resolution of sports disputes, ultimately benefiting all stakeholders in the football community.

    THE JURISDICTION QUESTION UNDER THE RULE K.

    It is a standard practice for parties in a dispute to use arbitration only when an arbitration clause exists in the agreement between the parties. Rule K(1) of the Regulation provides thus:

     ‘(a) Subject to Rule K1(b), K1(c)and K1(d) below, any dispute or difference between any two or more Participants (which shall include, for the purposes of this section of the Rules, The Association) including but not limited to a dispute arising out of or in connection with (including any question regarding the existence or validity of):

    1. the Rules and regulations of the Association, which are in force from time to time;
    2. the rules and regulations of an Affiliated Association or Competition which are in force from time to time;
    3. the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA, which are in force from time to time; or the Laws of the Game

    shall be referred to and finally solved by arbitration under these Rules.’

    From the above provision, any agreement that relates to or for applicable within the football industry in England is by law subject to arbitration, and parties cannot of their own free will decide to include a different means of dispute resolution in their agreement.

    The regulation goes ahead to determine who the ‘participants’ are under this regulation, whose contracts are under Rule K(1) of the Regulation above, subject to the FA Arbitration Tribunal. ‘Participants’ are defined under the regulation as:

    ‘Affiliated Association, Competition, Club, Club Official, Intermediary, Player, Official, Manager, Match Official, Management Committee Member, member or employee of a Club and all such persons who are from time to time participating in any activity sanctioned either directly or indirectly by The Association’

    In an interesting case on the application of the Rule K to defined participants above, whether or not the parties included arbitration in their agreement. Davies v. Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited[2] In this case, there was no prior explicit incorporation of Rule K arbitration in the player’s contract. However, the case is notable for the Judge’s decision that the parties were still bound by an arbitration agreement due to their adherence to the Rules. The Judge in his reasoning asserted that “Anyone who participates in the game of football (certainly at the professional level) is fully aware of the importance and the standing of the rules” (paragraph 16.c).

    It would appear from the decision of the court in Davies above, and successive other decisions, as in Bony v. Kacou & Ors.[3] The question that activates the jurisdiction of the FA Arbitral court is a much larger one than being an ordinary ‘participant’ within the meaning of Rule K(1) above; the question is whether the dispute among the parties is a ‘football dispute’. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then the jurisdiction of the FA Arbitral court will be activated.[4]

     ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION ACT 2023 AND THE SPORTS INDUSTRY. 

    A key aspect of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 is its replacement of the previous Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This change builds on Nigeria’s initial adoption of the New York Convention, which governs the enforcement of international commercial dispute resolutions. This adoption is a significant advancement, particularly for Nigeria’s economic landscape and the sports sector. Before now, various sporting federations and other sporting bodies have had to rely on their organisation’s internal set of enforcement mechanisms in order to enforce foreign procured Arbitral awards in Nigeria.  But for the first time, by virtue of Nigerian law, foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention are enforceable in Nigeria.

    The following are Sections of the Arbitration and Mediation Act that are particularly relevant to the sports industry:

    1. Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements: The Arbitration and Mediation Act (AMA) enforces arbitral agreements, regardless of whether they are explicitly written. As long as evidence of the agreement exists in any form, including electronic communication, it is enforceable. This flexibility is particularly advantageous for sports contracts and agreements, many of which are conducted electronically.[5]
    2. Third-Party Funding: The AMA makes provision for funding by third-parties for the purpose of commencing arbitration. Practically, this suggests that an individual or an organisation that is alien or unrelated to the dispute or the parties themselves can provide financial support to either of the disputing parties involved in the arbitration process. [6] This is potentially a game-changing provision, especially as it relates to the sports industry, where the bargaining and financial power is skewed against vulnerable sports stakeholders such as athletes. Third parties in Nigeria may now fund the arbitration process of indigent athletes and local sports bodies.
    3. Interim Measures: The AMA grants the various arbitral tribunals the power to make interim orders to protect the urgent and immediate interests of the parties during arbitration proceedings.[7] This is essentially an important provision as time is a precious resource in sports, whether it relates to an important event that takes place at a specific time of the year and needs to go on notwithstanding the arbitral proceedings or the career of an athlete that is dependent on his participation in an international sporting event. This provision will ensure that arbitral tribunals are empowered to serve justice between the parties, whether on an interim or permanent basis.
    4. Electronic Communications: in line with contemporary practice, the AMA makes provision for electronic formats of communications, this includes but not limited email, chats on social media applications as a valid making an arbitration agreement, this makes it easier for parties to enter into arbitration agreements, conclude third party sponsorships,  and even conduct virtual proceedings without the need for physical contact.[8]
    5. Stay of Proceedings: The AMA provides that the courts must stay proceedings in matters before it whenever there is an existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, the only exception, however, is in circumstances where the arbitral agreement is void or inoperative.[9] This provision caters to the intention of the parties at the time of entering the disputed agreement.

    THE NATIONAL SPORTS COMMISSION, THE ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION ACT 2023  AND THE SWIFT RESOLUTION OF SPORTS DISPUTES IN NIGERIA.

    In October 2024, as a result of a cabinet reshuffle by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Ministry of Sports and Youth Development was decommissioned permanently, and the National Sports Commission was reinstituted (for the 4th time), making it the  Apex sports administrative body in Nigeria. A chairman was subsequently appointed to manage its affairs.  It goes without saying that all sports federations and parastatals in Nigeria fall under the supervision of, and answer to, the Commission. Thus, these federations and parastatals are within the policy direction of the commission, making the implementation of a single dispute resolution mechanism across the sports industry in Nigeria a possibility.

    The National Sports Commission currently operates under Decree 34 of 1971, which was the regulatory framework when it was first founded under the administration of General Yakubu Gowon. This legislative framework has, however, become obsolete and no longer serves the purpose of delimiting the administrative structure of the commission in 2024. A new bill for the establishment of a 21st-century National Sports Commission has since gathered dust within the Nigerian legislative Chambers, which would definitely hamper the efficient functioning of the newly revived Commission. It is against this background, doubtful whether the Commission indeed possesses the requisite legal wherewithal to embark on far-reaching reforms in the sports sector, in the absence of a legislative framework defining the scope of its powers and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the Commission possesses sufficient executive delegated power to, in the interim, commence the process of implementing its renewed mandate.

    Against the backdrop of the National Sports Policy 2022-2026 which classifies sports as a business for the first time and emphasises the promotion and the private ownership of sports franchises in Nigeria, and the examination of the Rule K Arbitration by the English Football Association it becomes clear that there is an urgent need to reduce government participation in sport through its ownership and administration of the various sports franchises across the country, and allow the private sector to drive growth of this sector.  The role of government is to provide an enabling environment, pass the laws and policies to assist stakeholder participation, but allow the private sector to take the reins.  To avoid the sun setting on our submissions, we make the following recommendations:

    1. Speedy passage of the National Sports Commission bill in order to delineate the scope of the powers and responsibilities of the newly reconstituted National Sports Council.
    2. Building on the sports industry-friendly Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, to enact an Arbitration Policy for the sports industry in Nigeria.
    3. Understand the English FA Rule K so as to adapt the same subject to local circumstances.
    4.  Train specialised arbitrators to man the Sports Arbitral Body.

    References

    [1] Grahame Anderson on FA Rule K Arbitration Jurisdiction Challenges, < https://littletonchambers.com/grahame-anderson-on-fa-rule-k-arbitration-jurisdiction-challenges/ > accessed 9 December, 24.

    [2] [2017] EWHC 2095 per HHJ Bird

    [3]  [2017] EWHC 2146 (Ch.) at para. 33-35 per HHJ Pelling QC

    [4] ibid.

    [5] Section 2(3) of the AMA 2023

    [6] Section 62 of the AMA 2023

    [7] Section 20 of the AMA 2023

    [8] Section 73(5) of the AMA 2023

    [9] Section (5) of the AMA 2023

  • Mondaq recognises OAL Lawyers in Spring 2025 Thought Leadership Awards

    Mondaq recognises OAL Lawyers in Spring 2025 Thought Leadership Awards

    We are proud to announce that four of our outstanding lawyers at Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) have been honoured in the Mondaq Spring 2025 Thought Leadership Awards, which recognise the most widely read and impactful legal thought leadership contributions across multiple jurisdictions and practice areas as follows.

    Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya, Partner – Lagos, Nigeria
    Category: Sports Law
    Recognised for her contribution in: “FIFA’s Change of National Team Allegiance Regulations: Case Study on Nsue Emilio – Lessons for Football Players, Stakeholders, Member Associations and FIFA.“

    Ifeoma Ezenwa, Senior Associate – Lagos, Nigeria
    Categories: Employment & HR; Real Estate & Construction
    Recognised for her contribution in: “The Rights of Landlords and Tenants“ as well as her contribution in “Navigating Labour Compliance in Nigeria: What Every HR Professional Needs to Know About the New Minimum Wage Amendment Act.“

    Seun Akinade, Associate – Abuja, Nigeria
    Category: Employment & HR
    Recognised for his contribution in: “Navigating Labour Compliance in Nigeria: What Every HR Professional Needs to Know About the New Minimum Wage Amendment Act.“

    Olabisi Afolabi, Associate – Lagos, Nigeria
    Categories: Sports Law; Real Estate & Construction
    Recognised for his contribution in: “The Rights of Landlords and Tenants“ as well as his contribution in “FIFA’s Change of National Team Allegiance Regulations: Case Study on Nsue Emilio – Lessons for Football Players, Stakeholders, Member Associations and FIFA.“

    These recognitions reflect Mondaq’s assessment of articles with the highest readership between October 2024 and March 2025, across 16 countries and numerous legal sectors.

    We extend our heartfelt congratulations to our colleagues and our appreciation to our readers and clients for their continued engagement and support.

    Congratulations to Beverley, Ifeoma, Seun, and Olabisi, and thank you to all our readers.

    You can find the full listings here.

     

  • The Capetown Convention and  Challenges of Implementation in Nigeria

    The Capetown Convention and  Challenges of Implementation in Nigeria

    The Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, commonly known as the Cape Town Convention (CTC), is an international treaty that standardises transactions involving movable property. The treaty establishes international standards for registration of contracts of sale (including dedicated registration agencies), security interests (liens), leases and conditional sales contracts, various legal remedies for default in financing agreements such as repossession, and addresses the impact of specific states’ bankruptcy laws.

    The treaty was negotiated at a diplomatic meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, in 2001 and signed by 53 countries. It came into force on March 1, 2006, and has been approved by 57 parties. The Aircraft Protocol (which primarily pertains to airplanes and aircraft engines) went into force on March 1, 2006, when it was ratified by eight countries: Ethiopia, Ireland, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Pakistan, and the United States.

    Nigeria signed the Cape Town Convention on November 16, 2001, and ratified it on December 16, 2003. The Convention was subsequently domesticated through Section 50(2) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2022. To facilitate its effective implementation, the Federal High Court introduced the Federal High Court (Cape Town Convention & Aircraft Protocol) Practice Direction, 2024.

    The Practice Direction creates a predictable and streamlined legal framework for the court in the handling of disputes involving aircraft leases and other interests created over aircraft. Notable provisions of the direction include: requiring courts to take judicial notice of and enforce CTC provisions, respecting jurisdictional choices made by parties under the Convention, interpreting questions according to CTC principles rather than applying similar national law remedies, prohibiting courts from granting injunctions that conflict with the Convention, and implementing strict timelines for enforcement actions both within and outside insolvency proceedings such as requiring recognition of foreign orders within ten clear days and granting remedies related to lease management within 30 days all designed to streamline repossession and enforcement processes for lessors and lenders in cases of default.

    IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

    Despite Nigeria’s commendable progress in implementing the Cape Town Convention, several significant challenges continue to undermine its effectiveness and threaten the realisation of its full potential.

    Legal Ambiguities Creating Uncertainty

    Some experts have noted a lack of clarity as a potential drawback in the Practice Direction. It has been argued that the Practice Direction fails to specify precisely which categories of assets fall under its scope, which can inadvertently create room for inconsistent judicial interpretations. This ambiguity may undermine the predictability that international lessors and financial institutions require when making multi-million-dollar investment decisions.

    Some experts also argued that although the Direction streamlines initial proceedings, it cannot prevent appeals to the Supreme Court. This limitation may create vulnerability to delaying tactics through procedural manoeuvres such as applications for a stay of execution. In practice, these legal pathways can frustrate legitimate repossession efforts for months or even years, effectively negating the Convention’s promise of swift enforcement and eroding investor confidence.

    Imbalanced Protections in a Complex Market

    The implementation challenges extend beyond procedural concerns to fundamental questions of fairness and balanced protections. Evidence has emerged of international lessors exploiting regulatory gaps to repossess aircraft despite having received full lease payments from Nigerian operators.

    In one particularly troubling case, a foreign lessor reportedly collected $2 million from a Nigerian airline only to unilaterally remove the aircraft from the country shortly afterwards. The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority’s inability to intervene in this situation exposed a critical regulatory blind spot that undermines trust in the leasing ecosystem. Such incidents highlight how implementation without adequate checks and balances can create vulnerabilities for local operators while potentially discouraging future leasing arrangements.

    Judicial and Institutional Capacity Gaps

    Perhaps the most persistent implementation challenge stems from the judiciary’s limited experience with aviation finance cases and the technical complexities inherent in aircraft leasing arrangements. Many Nigerian judges, despite their legal expertise in other domains, lack specialised knowledge in this highly technical area, a gap that compromises their ability to make fully informed decisions when adjudicating Cape Town Convention disputes.

    While the Federal High Court’s recent decision permitting Export Development Canada to repossess an aircraft from a Nigerian operator represents progress, a single favourable ruling does not signify systemic improvement. The broader judiciary remains inadequately equipped to handle the technical intricacies of aviation financing consistently. Without comprehensive judicial training programs and specialised court sections dedicated to aviation matters, the risk of inconsistent rulings and prolonged litigation continues to threaten the Convention’s effectiveness.

    Enforcement Failures Undermining Compliance

    Beyond judicial challenges lies an equally troubling weakness in Nigeria’s compliance and enforcement framework. Currently, insufficient mechanisms exist to ensure all parties adhere to the Convention’s provisions throughout the lifecycle of aircraft transactions. The absence of clear, structured penalties for violations has created an environment where compliance remains essentially voluntary rather than mandatory.

    Industry stakeholders have consistently emphasised that without meaningful consequences for non-compliance, the reforms risk becoming merely symbolic gestures rather than substantive changes. The current lack of robust monitoring systems allows infractions to go undetected, while enforcement actions, when taken, often lack the necessary force to deter future violations. This enforcement vacuum ultimately undermines the entire purpose of the Convention, which depends on predictable outcomes and reliable enforcement to build confidence in the Nigerian leasing market.

    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING IMPLEMENTATION

    Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach focused on legal clarity, institutional capacity, and stakeholder engagement. The following interconnected recommendations provide a roadmap for fully realising the Convention’s potential in Nigeria:

    Legal and Regulatory Reforms

    A critical first step involves conducting a thorough review of existing national laws, particularly insolvency laws, to eliminate conflicts and ensure alignment with the Convention’s principles and objectives. This legal harmonisation must be complemented by authoritative regulatory guidance, with the NCAA issuing detailed, unambiguous regulations specific to Cape Town Convention implementation.

    Equally important is modernising Nigeria’s registration infrastructure through the creation of a comprehensive digital aircraft registry system. This registry should be fully integrated with the International Registry to ensure seamless documentation of interests and enhance transparency throughout the aircraft financing lifecycle.

    Judicial Strengthening and Specialised Knowledge

    To address the knowledge gap within the judiciary, Nigeria should invest in specialised training programs for judges who handle aviation finance cases. These programs should cover not only the legal aspects of the Convention but also the technical and financial dimensions of aircraft leasing and financing arrangements.

    Additionally, establishing streamlined judicial procedures specifically for Convention-related cases would significantly enhance enforcement efficiency. This approach could include designating specialised judges or court sections to handle aviation matters, ensuring that cases benefit from consistent expertise and established precedents.

    Institutional Capacity Building and Coordination

    Successful implementation also depends on strengthening the NCAA’s capacity to oversee Convention-related matters. This requires both additional resources and technical expertise, particularly in monitoring compliance and resolving disputes before they reach litigation.

    Furthermore, establishing structured coordination mechanisms between the NCAA and other relevant agencies, such as the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), would ensure more coherent government action across all aspects of aircraft transactions. This inter-agency cooperation becomes particularly crucial when addressing complex cases involving both aviation regulations and broader commercial or insolvency issues.

    Stakeholder Engagement and International Collaboration

    Maintaining open channels of communication with industry stakeholders, including airlines, lessors, and aircraft financiers, provides valuable insights into practical implementation challenges and potential solutions. Regular consultations and feedback mechanisms can help identify emerging issues before they become systemic problems.

    Finally, Nigeria should continue engaging with international partners and organisations with expertise in the Cape Town Convention implementation. By learning from global best practices and participating actively in international forums, Nigeria can continuously refine its approach and demonstrate its commitment to full compliance with international standards.

    CONCLUSION

    The Cape Town Convention and Practice Direction represent a significant milestone in Nigeria’s aviation journey, offering new opportunities for growth and enhanced credibility within the global aviation community. However, realising the full potential of the Cape Town Convention requires acknowledging and addressing the substantial challenges that remain.

    By focusing on legal clarity, balanced protections, judicial expertise, and robust enforcement mechanisms, Nigeria can create an environment where both international lessors and domestic operators benefit from the Convention’s framework. This balanced approach will not only sustain investor confidence but also support the development of a more accessible, affordable aviation sector for all Nigerians.

    As the country navigates this complex reform process, stakeholder collaboration and international engagement will be essential to overcoming implementation hurdles. With continued commitment and strategic improvements, Nigeria can transform the promise of the Cape Town Convention into tangible benefits for its aviation industry and broader economy, truly clearing the path for takeoff into a new era of aviation growth.

     

  • Land Ownership and Title Disputes in Nigeria: Understanding the Land Tenure System and Title Verification

    Land Ownership and Title Disputes in Nigeria: Understanding the Land Tenure System and Title Verification

    Abstract
    Land is widely one of the most important and contested resources in Nigeria. Its economic, cultural, and political significance has made it a central issue in areas such as private investment, community relations and governance. Unfortunately, land ownership in Nigeria is often plagued in uncertainty, with multiple claims and legal ambiguities that lead to a high volume of title disputes. This Article discusses Land ownership (Land Tenure system) and title disputes in Nigeria, focusing mainly on the legal framework regulating land ownership in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Act of 1978, the implications of customary land tenure, and the crucial processes involved in verifying land titles. It further identifies the root causes of land title disputes and offers recommendations for systemic reform to address these issues.

    Historical Development of Land Tenure in Nigeria

    The land tenure system in Nigeria has a rich history that can be divided into three significant periods: the pre-colonial era, the colonial era (which saw the introduction of English law), and the post-colonial era (characterised by Nigerian legal frameworks). During the pre-colonial period, land was primarily governed by customary law. In this system, ownership was communal rather than individualistic. Families or entire communities collectively held land, with heads of families or traditional leaders exercising control on behalf of the group. Rights to use the land were allocated based on lineage and community membership, meaning individual rights to farm or build were always subject to customary norms and practices.

    During the colonial era, the introduction of English legal principles significantly altered the traditional order, particularly in urban areas. This transformation led to the development of a dual legal system, where English land law coexisted with indigenous customary laws. The implementation of Crown land doctrines and the issuance of certificates of occupancy began to formalise landholding, but also resulted in inconsistencies and confusion regarding ownership rights. Notable among the legislative changes were the Public Lands Ordinance (1903, 1918), which granted the government the authority to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes, and the Crown Lands Ordinance (1902), which vested unallocated lands in the Crown. Furthermore, the Native Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1917 restricted foreigners from acquiring native lands without government approval, marking a significant shift in land ownership dynamics. Principles from English common law and equity, such as fee simple, leasehold, and trusts, were integrated into the legal framework through Reception clauses in colonial statutes, notably in the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 and the Interpretation Ordinance of 1914. Additionally, the Town and Country Planning Ordinance of 1946 introduced urban planning and zoning regulations.

    As a result, a dual land tenure system emerged, where customary law governed rural areas while English statutory law applied in urban or Crown-controlled regions. This framework has laid the groundwork for many of the modern land administration challenges faced in Nigeria today.

    Before the enactment of the Land Use Act of 1978, Nigeria had several land laws aimed at regulating land ownership and administration. These included the State Lands Laws, enacted by regional governments to manage state-owned land, and the Public Lands Acquisition Act, which allowed the government to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes with compensation provided. The Government Lands Act governed land held by the federal government, while the Registration of Titles Act and various Land Instruments Registration Laws sought to formalise land transactions and reduce disputes through registration. Additionally, the Native Rights Ordinance of 1916, particularly in Northern Nigeria, placed all native lands under government control to be held in trust for the people. Together, these laws, along with customary land practices, created a fragmented system that the Land Use Act later aimed to unify.

    The Land Use Act 1978

    The Land Use Act of 1978 was enacted to harmonise land tenure across the country. Under this law, all land in each state, except for land owned by the Federal Government or its agencies, is vested in the Governor, who holds it in trust for the people. Individuals and corporate entities can only acquire rights of occupancy, either statutory or customary, which are granted by the Governor or the Local Government, respectively. The Act requires that any transfer of interest in land, including assignments and mortgages, must receive the Governor’s consent; failure to obtain this renders the transaction null and void. Although the Act was intended to simplify land administration, it has also introduced bureaucratic obstacles and centralised power, which often impedes efficiency.

    Customary law

    Customary law continues to be prominent, especially in rural areas where traditional norms dictate land relations. While this framework provides accessibility and flexibility, it is often unwritten and based on oral history and traditions, which can lead to uncertainty and competing claims. Transactions carried out under customary law may not be formally documented or registered, thus increasing the risk of future disputes.

    Case Laws

    Judicial pronouncements have been instrumental in interpreting the interconnected systems governing land title in Nigeria. The case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 remains the locus classicus on the methods of proving land title in Nigeria. In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court identified five ways by which land title may be established: through traditional evidence based on first settlement; by the presentation of properly executed title documents; by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient period; through long possession and enjoyment of the land; and by proving possession of adjacent land under certain circumstances. The Court emphasised that a claimant does not need to prove all five methods; establishing just one of them, if convincingly demonstrated, is sufficient.

    Modes of acquiring Land title in Nigeria

    In Nigeria, land title can be acquired through various means, including government allocation, private purchase, inheritance, donation, or long-term possession under the doctrine of adverse possession. Ownership is typically evidenced by documents such as certificates of occupancy, deeds of assignment, leases, gifts, survey plans, and occasionally court orders or vesting instruments. However, having these documents does not always guarantee a conclusive title, particularly if there have been procedural lapses or if consent requirements were not properly followed.

    Common causes of Land title disputes

    The frequency of land disputes can be attributed to a number of recurring issues. Common among these are the double or multiple sales of the same land parcel by unscrupulous vendors, use of forged or defective documents, lack of proper family or community consent in customary transactions, conflicting survey boundaries, government acquisition or revocation, and undisclosed legal encumbrances. These issues often emerge when due diligence has not been adequately carried out.

    Due Diligence for a valid title transfer upon purchase of Land

    It is imperative for prospective purchasers and investors to conduct thorough title verification before engaging in any land transaction. This process usually involves physically inspecting the property, conducting searches at the relevant Land Registry, and confirming with the Surveyor-General’s Office to ensure that the land is not under acquisition or reserved for public use.  Additionally, it is important to review the Governor’s consent when applicable. For cases involving customary titles, obtaining confirmation from the community and family is essential. Engaging legal professionals to oversee these procedures can greatly minimise the risk of disputes and ensure proper documentation.

    Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

    When disputes arise, there are several ways to resolve them, including litigation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or administrative intervention. While litigation remains the formal route for land disputes, it is often time-consuming and expensive. ADR mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, offer more flexible, confidential, and expedient options. In certain rural settings, petitions to traditional rulers, community leaders, or land commissions may also be effective.  However, these options may not have the same enforceability as court rulings.

    Recommendations for Legal and Institutional Reform

    For Nigeria to effectively address its recurrent land title crises, certain legal and institutional reforms are necessary. A key reform is the digitisation of land registries, which would promote transparency and help prevent forgery. Additionally, there is a need to harmonise statutory and customary land systems by integrating traditional land rights into formal registration processes. Amending the Land Use Act would help mitigate many current challenges, such as the over-centralisation of land ownership by the government, bureaucratic obstacles like the requirement for Governor’s Consent on all land transactions, vague and inconsistent provisions within the Act, and issues related to possessory rights for holders of Certificates of Occupancy. It could also address conflicts with customary land rights, inadequate compensation for compulsory acquisition, and the rigidity of the amendment processes. Moreover, public education and legal literacy campaigns should be intensified to raise awareness about the importance of proper documentation. Establishing specialised land tribunals with jurisdiction over land matters could expedite resolution and alleviate the burden on conventional courts. Finally, implementing laws like the Lagos State Land Grabbing Law would help curb fraudulent practices in land transactions and protect property owners in Nigeria.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, land ownership in Nigeria is governed by a mix of customary practices and statutory regulations. Although the Land Use Act established a central framework, there are numerous deficiencies and significant gaps in its implementation, record keeping, and enforcement. As disputes continue to arise, it is essential to focus on proper title verification and proactive legal compliance. Legal practitioners have a responsibility to guide their clients through the complexities of land transactions, advocate for reforms, and push for a more coherent and efficient land administration system. By taking these concerted actions, Nigeria can unlock the full potential of its land resources for sustainable development and economic empowerment.