Femi Ashekun/
The Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that the Federal Government, the 36 state governments and the Federal Capital Territory “have the legal obligations to provide free, compulsory and universal basic education for every Nigerian child of primary and junior secondary school age.”
The landmark judgment was delivered on October 9, 2025 by Justice D. E. Osiagor following a suit filed by Femi Falana, SAN, and Hauwa Mustapha on behalf of themselves and the Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond.
A certified true copy of the judgment was obtained on Wednesday, according to Tayo Soyemi of Falana and Falana Chambers. The Federal Government, the 36 states and the FCT were listed as respondents.
In the ruling, the court affirmed that, “while by virtue of Section 11(2) of the Universal Basic Education Act the Federal Government, the 36 states and the FCT are under a binding statutory duty to provide free and compulsory basic education within their territories, their decision to access or not access the Federal matching grants remains discretionary.”
Justice Osiagor further held that “any State that elects to participate must comply strictly with Section 11(2) by contributing 50 percent counterpart funds before drawing from the Universal Basic Education.”
Reading portions of the judgment, the judge stated: “I hold that Section 11(2) is directory and conditional, not mandatory, and that failure to access the Federal block grant does not per se amount to illegality.”
He added: “I have carefully considered the Originating Summons, the Affidavit in support and the Exhibits annexed thereto, the Written Address of learned counsel for the Applicant, the various Counter Affidavits and Written Addresses filed on behalf of the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th and 27th Respondents, and the submissions made therein.
“I have also examined the provisions of the Compulsory, Free Universal Basic Education Act, 2004, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the relevant judicial authorities cited by the Applicant and the Respondents that replied.
“The issues for resolution in this suit, in my humble view, can be distilled as follows: Whether the Applicant possesses the requisite locus standi to institute this action?
“Whether the right to free, compulsory and universal basic education under Section 2(1) of the UBE Act, 2004, is enforceable and justiciable against the Respondents?
“Whether the refusal or failure of the Respondents to contribute not less than 50% counterpart funding and access the N68 billion Universal Basic Education Fund is illegal as it violates Section 11(2) of the Universal Basic Education Act, 2004?”
On the question of locus standi, the court affirmed that the applicants had the legal standing to institute the suit. The action was brought by members of the Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond, a public interest group seeking to enforce children’s rights under the Universal Basic Education Act, 2004.
The court noted that although traditional interpretations of locus standi require direct personal injury, public interest litigation allows a broader approach where wider societal interests are involved. The judge stressed that citizens are entitled to ensure the enforcement of laws that protect public welfare, including the rights of children, widows and orphans.
He held that the applicants demonstrated genuine concern for the educational rights of children and provided evidence of unaccessed federal education grants affecting millions of school-age children. Issue One was accordingly resolved in favour of the applicants.
On the second issue, the court considered whether the right to free, compulsory and universal basic education under Section 2(1) of the UBE Act is enforceable against the respondents. Some of the defendants argued that the right to free education under Section 18 of the Constitution falls under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and is therefore non-justiciable.
The court rejected this argument, holding that the enactment of the UBE Act gives statutory force to the right, making it enforceable. The judge cited comparative examples from jurisdictions such as India and Pakistan, noting that once legislation imposes obligations, such obligations become binding in law.
The court therefore ruled that Sections 2(1) and 11(2) of the UBE Act are justiciable and legally binding, resolving the second issue in favour of the applicants.
On the third issue, the court examined whether the failure of states to provide at least 50 percent counterpart funding to access the N68 billion Universal Basic Education Fund amounts to a violation of Section 11(2) of the UBE Act. While the applicants argued that the provision imposes a statutory duty on states and that non-compliance fuels the growing number of out-of-school children, the court held that the obligation is conditional rather than absolute.
Justice Osiagor ruled that Section 11(2) applies only to states that choose to access the federal block grant and that the Act treats federal funding as assistance rather than a compulsory entitlement.
He noted that there is no penal sanction for states that decline to access the fund, and that the primary statutory duty under Section 2(1) to provide basic education exists independently of federal grants.
In his conclusion, the judge held: “It follows that the failure of a State to access the Federal matching grant may be unwise or undesirable from a policy perspective, but it is not, in itself, illegal under Section 11(2) of the UBE Act.
“The statutory duty imposed on States is to provide free, compulsory, and universal basic education (Section 2(1)); the Act does not render the means of achieving that goal i.e. through Federal assistance compulsory.
“Accordingly, while the Court strongly deprecates the refusal of States to access available education funds, such refusal does not constitute a breach of law, unless it can be shown that the State has altogether failed to provide basic education, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Act and the Child’s Rights laws enacted in each State.”
0
