Feature/OPED
X-Raying Delta State Disability Protection Bill 2024
By Jerome-Mario Utomi
Similar to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), an international human rights treaty, was adopted on 13 December 2006 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, and opened for signature on 30 March 2007, to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all disabled persons, the Delta state house of assembly recently made ‘history’ with its passage of the disability protection bill, 2024.
The bill which passed through the third reading at a plenary presided over by Emomotimi Guwor, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, was sponsored by Marylyn Okowa-Daramola, member representing Ika north east. The passage of the bill followed a motion moved by Emeka Nwaobi, the House Majority Leader; Bridget Anyafulu, the Chairman of the House Committee on Housing, Women’s Affairs, Girl-child Entrepreneurship; and humanitarian support services.
Viewed broadly, the above move by the Delta State House of Assembly becomes deeply appreciated when one brings into view the World Health Organization’s 2011 World Disability Report, which revealed that about 15 per cent of Nigeria’s population, or at least 25 million people, have a disability. Many of them, the report added, face several human rights abuses, including stigma, discrimination, violence, and lack of access to healthcare, housing, and education.
More specifically, a major landmark inherent in the bill as passed by the house is that when signed into law by the state governor, it promises to become a remarkable win for persons with disabilities in Delta state as its provisions will ensure improved inclusiveness, participation, protection, equity and empowerment as well as ensure improved access to transportation, including exclusive parking spaces.
Again, aside from coming with accompanying penalties for infringements and calls for the establishment of the Commission for Persons With Disabilities, a body that will facilitate implementation of the provisions of the proposed law, also very alluring is the awareness that the proposed law will also promote inclusivity and accessibility by providing persons with disability lifts, ramps and other accessibility aids to all physical structures and emphasized the rights of persons living with disabilities to basic and secondary education, to live independently, access information and participate fully in political, cultural and social life.”
Beyond the merits that flow from the recently passed bill, deltans with critical interest are, however, worried about the development. To them, policy formulation has never been a problem in the country as Nigeria at both state and Federal levels is visibly blessed with world-class policymakers. Rather, implementation and enforcement of those globally acclaimed policies have always been the major impediment to the nation’s development.
There is also the belief in some quarters that the enactment of the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act is neither new nor final but only a first step in the fulfilment of Nigeria’s obligations under the CRPD. This consciousness again raises the poser as to what should be done to put effective measures in place for its full implementation to ensure equal treatment and participation of people with disabilities.
Indeed, the above fears expressed by Deltans of goodwill cannot be described as unfounded particularly when one remembers that Nigeria has reportedly ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2007 and its Optional Protocol in 2010, without in practical terms, giving a fair deal to the disabled in the country-a failure attributable to weak enforcement and lack of coordinated implementation.
According to Aniete Ewang, Lawyer and Nigeria Researcher in the Africa division, of Human Rights Watch, Nigeria ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2007 and its Optional Protocol in 2010. Since then, civil society groups and people with disabilities have called on the government to put it into practice. In 2011 and 2015, the National Assembly passed the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Bill 2009, but former President Goodluck Jonathan declined to sign it into law. The bill for the new law was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate joint committee in November 2016 but was not sent to Buhari for his signature until December 2018.
On January 17, the report added, Buhari denied on national television that he had received the bill. Hundreds of people protested, and barely five days later, he signed the bill into law.
The law prohibits discrimination based on disability and imposes sanctions including fines and prison sentences on those who contravene it. It also stipulates a five-year transitional period for modifying public buildings, structures, and automobiles to make them accessible and usable for people with disabilities.
Also very troubling in the opinion of this piece is the fact that if the recently passed bill by the state is juxtaposed with the federally passed law on Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition), both share common features.
Take as an example, both laws prohibit discrimination based on disability and impose sanctions including fines and prison sentences on those who contravene it. The two propositions at both state and Federal called for the establishment of a Commission for Persons with Disabilities, responsible for ensuring that people with disabilities have access to housing, education, and healthcare. The Commission was also empowered to receive complaints of rights violations and support victims to seek legal redress amongst other duties.
From the above standpoint, it again elicits the question as to if after all these years, the provisions in the Federal Government version could not offer adequate protection to Nigerians, what difference will the ongoing efforts at the state level make? Another question that is as important as the bill itself is; why does the ongoing effort by the Delta State House of Assembly not cover all areas of life, from Health, Education and Employment to Equal Recognition before the Law, Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse, and Accessibility?
Why did the Delta state lawmakers fail to offer intersectional perspectives, in respect of women with disabilities and children with disabilities as found in the United Nation’s Optional Protocol which established individual complaints mechanism for the UNCRDP, and compels States Parties who ratify the Optional Protocol to agree and recognize the competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to consider complaints from individuals or groups who claim their rights under the Convention have been violated? If the present effort by the State House of Assembly (Disability Protection Bill, 2024), becomes toothless like its Federal counterpart, will the energy dissipated on this bill not amount to share waste of time and task payers money?
For a better understanding of the relevance of questions, the UNCRPD contains 50 Articles. Aside from provisions around definitions, principles and processes, the Convention contains 26 Articles covering all areas of life, from Health, Education and Employment to Equal Recognition before the Law, Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse, and Accessibility. The Convention also offered intersectional perspectives, in respect of women with disabilities and children with disabilities.
Article 8 for example stated in clear terms what the States Parties need to undertake to achieve immediate, effective and appropriate measures aimed at raising awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities, and fostering respect for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities; combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life.
Article 9 on its part focused on accessibility that will assist the targeted beneficiaries live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, noting that States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia: (a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces; (b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.
For me, these are tiny details that if taken care of by the state Assembly would have made a whole lot of positive difference.
Utomi Jerome-Mario is the Programme Coordinator (Media and Policy) for Social and Economic Justice Advocacy (SEJA), Lagos. He can be reached via [email protected]/08032725374
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
By Isah Kamisu Madachi
As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.
In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.
Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.
To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.
What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.
As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.
What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.
Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.
The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.
Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.
These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.
Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]
By Gbolahan Oluyemi
In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.
What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?
A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost. The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.
Why is a PCC Important?
The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?
Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.
How Do I Obtain a PCC?
PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/. Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.
Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.
Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.
Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:
- Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
- Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
- Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
- Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
- A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
- An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal
Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.
Conclusion
Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.
For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.
Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn