Opinions
Environmental Rights as Constitutional Rights: Nigeria’s Legal Evolution, by Collins Okeke
The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights.
Introduction
The environmental crisis in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region represents one of the most severe cases of industrial pollution in human history.
Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine delta ecosystem has endured systematic degradation through oil spills, with conservative estimates indicating between 9 and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment.
Between 2020-2021 alone, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency documented 822 separate oil spills, releasing 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.
Nigerian courts have developed an innovative constitutional framework for environmental protection in response to this ongoing environmental catastrophe.
This jurisprudential evolution marks a significant departure from traditional common law and statutory remedies, establishing environmental rights as fundamental human rights deserving constitutional protection.
Changing environmental rights from mere policy objectives to enforceable constitutional rights represents one of the most significant developments in Nigerian constitutional law.
Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection
The Nigerian Constitution establishes environmental protection through several interconnected provisions.
Section 20 explicitly mandates that “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.”
Whilst placed within Chapter 2 of the Constitution, this provision has gained increasing significance through judicial interpretation and legislative action.
Traditionally, Section 20’s placement within the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy rendered it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution.
However, Nigerian courts have developed two significant exceptions to this principle of non-justiciability.
The first exception arises when the National Assembly exercises its powers under Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List by enacting laws to “promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles” contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.
When the National Assembly enacts legislation relating to Chapter 2 provisions pursuant to Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the courts have consistently held these provisions to be enforceable.
The second exception occurs when Chapter 2 provisions are interpreted in conjunction with justiciable provisions of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights outlined in Chapter 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of Chapter 2 become enforceable.
Beyond Section 20, the Constitution provides additional environmental protection through fundamental rights provisions.
Section 33(1)’s right to life and Section 34(1)’s right to human dignity have been interpreted to encompass environmental protection.
These provisions within the justiciable Chapter 4 provide direct avenues for environmental rights enforcement.
African Charter Framework
The African Charter operates through a unique dual mechanism in Nigeria, functioning as an international treaty and as domestic legislation through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
The Supreme Court in Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 established that whilst the African Charter is subject to the Constitution, it holds “a greater vigour and strength” than ordinary domestic statutes.
The Charter provides several environmental rights that complement constitutional protections.
Article 4 guarantees the right to life, which the African Commission has interpreted to include protection from life-threatening environmental conditions.
Article 16 establishes the right to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, whilst Article 22 recognises the right to economic, social, and cultural development.
Most directly, Article 24 guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to development.
These Charter rights gain additional force through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, which mandate expansive interpretation of both constitutional and Charter rights.
The Rules specifically provide for enforcement of Charter rights alongside constitutional rights, creating a comprehensive framework for environmental protection.
Early Jurisprudential Developments Initial judicial approaches to environmental rights claims adopted a restrictive interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Courts generally treated environmental matters as policy issues rather than justiciable rights, limiting remedies to traditional common law and statutory frameworks.
This approach reflected a narrow reading of Section 6(6)(c), treating Chapter 2 provisions, including Section 20’s environmental mandate, as purely aspirational. However, over time, this restrictive approach began to shift.
The Supreme Court established the transition from non-justiciability to enforceability of Chapter 2 rights in the landmark decision of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 51 WRN 6. Olafisoye was charged with corrupt practices under Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which addresses the fundamental objective of government to abolish corruption.
Olafisoye challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution was non-justiciable.
After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Niki Tobi, delivering the lead judgement, first reviewed the history of Chapter 2 rights and referenced the “raison d’être” of the Constitution’s drafters to explain the chapter’s rationale.
The Supreme Court Justice stated that Chapter 2 rights were established in the Constitution as aspirational goals with future potential for enforceability.
He explained that this was why Section 6(6)(c) provided exceptions to the non-justiciability of Chapter 2.
Justice Niki Tobi held that whilst corrupt practices established by Section 15(5) are not justiciable at face value, these provisions may become justiciable when read in conjunction with Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution.”
He stated: “The non-justiciability of Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.’
A community reading of Item 60(a) and Section 15(5) results in quite a different package, a package which no more leaves Chapter 2 a toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite.
In my view, by the joint reading of the two provisions, Chapter 2 becomes clearly and obviously justiciable.”
The Supreme Court dismissed Olafisoye’s objection, with Justice Niki Tobi holding that the indictment fell within the exceptions permitting the National Assembly to legislate the enforcement of Chapter 2 rights.
The Olafisoye decision established the doctrine that whilst Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) is generally non-justiciable, it is enforceable within the exceptions permitted by the Constitution.
The Gbemre Decision: A New Direction
The Federal High Court’s decision in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 marked a fundamental transformation in Nigerian environmental rights jurisprudence.
The case concerned gas flaring activities in the Niger Delta region, with communities alleging violations of both constitutional and Charter rights.
The Court’s groundbreaking decision recognised environmental rights as fundamental human rights for the first time in Nigerian judicial history.
In a seminal declaration, the Court held that “the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in Sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution… inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.”
Significantly, the Court found that gas flaring activities violated these constitutional rights, establishing that industrial activities causing environmental harm could constitute fundamental rights violations.
The decision also bridged constitutional and Charter protections, demonstrating how these frameworks could work together to protect environmental rights.
COPW: Supreme Court Confirmation
The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights.
The case arose from an oil pipeline explosion that contaminated waterways, destroyed aquatic life, and threatened community health and livelihoods.
The Supreme Court stated: “The present action concerns an oil pipeline that burst, allegedly spilling crude oil into waterways, polluting drinking sources and destroying aquatic life, plant life, and fauna, and also endangering the health and lives of the people of the community.
In this regard, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides for the right to life.
Any act or omission which threatens the health of the people of the community also threatens their lives and is in breach of the guarantee of the right to life provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”
The Court further stated: “Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to life whilst Section 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of the country.’
See also: Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides ‘All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.’
These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognise the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.”
This judgement significantly expanded the scope of environmental rights within the context of oil pollution damage, particularly linking the right to life and the right to a clean environment.
Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.
Impact and Current State of the Law
The COPW decision effectively overruled more restrictive approaches to environmental rights, establishing several crucial principles.
First, it confirmed that environmental degradation can violate fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter.
Second, it established that environmental rights are directly enforceable through constitutional claims.
Third, it mandated a broad and purposive interpretation of environmental rights to ensure effective protection. Subsequent courts have consistently followed and built upon COPW’s constitutional framework.
Most notable are Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ajanaku & Anor (2021) LPELR-52566(CA) and Chief Isaac Obor – Ntito Torchi and Others v. Shell Development Company Limited and Others (Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020).
In the latter case, the most recent case, the court awarded unprecedented damages of Eight Hundred Billion Naira against Shell for environmental pollution – the largest such award in Nigerian history. This represents a decisive shift from the old constitutional orthodoxy that considered environmental rights non-justiciable to the current approach treating them as enforceable constitutional rights.
These developments have significant practical implications. Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.
The broad interpretative approach mandated by COPW and followed in subsequent cases provides flexibility in recognising various forms of environmental harm as rights violations.
These legal developments for multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria present substantial new risks and obligations.
The elevation of environmental rights to constitutional status means that oil companies now face potential liability not just under traditional environmental regulations, but also for fundamental rights violations.
This expanded liability framework has several key implications for multinationals:
First, the constitutional framework allows for significantly higher damages awards, as demonstrated by the Eight Hundred Billion Naira judgement against Shell.
Unlike statutory environmental fines, there are no preset limits on constitutional damages.
Second, the broader standing rules for constitutional claims mean that entire communities, not just directly affected individuals, can bring claims against oil companies.
Third, the constitutional nature of these rights means that companies cannot rely on mere compliance with environmental regulations as a complete defence – they must ensure their operations do not infringe on fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment.
Finally, the constitutional framework creates enhanced reputational risks for multinationals, as being found liable for human rights violations carries greater stigma than traditional environmental infractions.
▪︎Collins Okeke is an Associate Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal.
Opinions
The Girl Who Was Almost Married at 10 Is Taking Her Story to the United Nations
On September 4 this week…Sierra Leone’s First Lady is expected to stand before the United Nations General Assembly with a proposal aimed at protecting millions of girls from the same fate.
• Sierra Leone’s First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio
By Ahmed Sahid Nasralla (De Monk)
AT about 10 years old, Fatima Maada Bio already knew who she was expected to marry.
She was a child, but an adult decision had been made about the direction her life should take. Somehow, she escaped that future.
On September 4 this week, many, many years after that little girl could have been sent into a marriage she did not choose, Sierra Leone’s First Lady is expected to stand before the United Nations General Assembly with a proposal aimed at protecting millions of girls from the same fate.
She is expected to present a draft resolution seeking the proclamation of November 27 as an ‘International Day for the Elimination of Child, Early and Forced Marriage’. The proposal is new.
The date is not yet an official UN observance. It is a call for the international community to give the issue a permanent place on its calendar and, with it, sustained attention and action.
There is something deeply personal about that journey.
According to briefing material from the Office of the First Lady of Sierra Leone, she knew at around the age of 10 who she was expected to marry and narrowly escaped child marriage.
That experience did not become a footnote in her life. It became part of the reason she has spent years speaking about the rights and protection of women and girls.
The First Lady’s public advocacy has taken her from communities in Sierra Leone to some of the world’s most important international forums.
Her flagship ‘Hands Off Our Girls’ campaign has focused on ending rape, early marriage and violence against women and girls, while her work has also extended into girls’ education, women’s health and other issues affecting vulnerable communities.
However, her return to the United Nations this time carries a particularly personal weight.
She is taking a subject that could have defined her own childhood and asking the international community to give it greater and lasting attention.
It is not her first attempt to put child protection on the UN agenda.
In 2022, she spearheaded the effort that led the General Assembly to proclaim November 18 as the ‘World Day for the Prevention of and Healing from Child Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Violence’.
“She is expected to present a draft resolution seeking the proclamation of November 27 as an ‘International Day for the Elimination of Child, Early and Forced Marriage’. The proposal is new.”
UNAIDS describes her as having championed the adoption of that first-ever World Day.
The United Nations has also continued to strengthen its attention to child, early and forced marriage.
In December 2024, the General Assembly adopted a resolution addressing the issue.
Sierra Leone has been moving on the national front too. The country enacted legislation in 2024 prohibiting marriage involving anyone under 18.
So when Fatima Maada Bio walks into the General Assembly this week, she will be carrying a story that has travelled through several stages: from the experience of a young girl, to a national campaign, to legislation, and now to another attempt to secure a place for the issue on the global calendar.
The numbers behind the issue are sobering.
The United Nations and other international organisations have consistently described child marriage as a major barrier to girls’ education, health, economic opportunity and personal autonomy.
Behind every statistic, though, there is a girl whose childhood is being shortened.
There is a school she may leave, friends she may lose, choices she may never get to make, and a future that may be decided for her before she is old enough to understand what that future means. That is why the personal history of the woman making this proposal is important.
Fatima Maada Bio knows what it means for adults to imagine a future for a girl before she has had the opportunity to imagine one for herself. She also knows what it means to get away.
That gives her advocacy a particular human quality. The issue is something she encountered as a child and has carried into her public life as an adult.
The fight has also taken her beyond child marriage. Last week, OncoDaily named her among its 100 Influential Women in Oncology for 2026, recognising her work in women’s health and cancer prevention.
The publication highlighted her partnership with the Merck Foundation, which has supported specialist medical training in Sierra Leone, including scholarships that contributed to the development of the country’s cancer-care workforce.
It also noted her advocacy for breast cancer awareness and early detection and her participation in discussions around the WHO Global Breast Cancer Initiative.
It is another part of a public role that has increasingly stretched beyond the traditional image of a First Lady.
Then there is child protection, and women’s health.
There is girls’ education, and the wider question of how countries protect women and children who often have the least power over decisions affecting their lives.
The international recognition in oncology is significant for another reason.
It shows that her advocacy is being noticed in fields far removed from the political spotlight in which First Ladies are usually seen.
Nonetheless, the child-marriage campaign remains different. It brings her public work unusually close to her own childhood.
Sierra Leone, as a country, has its own reason to pay attention to what happens in New York this week.
The country has already taken the important step of outlawing marriage involving children under 18.
The First Lady has been one of the most visible voices pushing the protection of girls into the national conversation.
Her campaign has also received international recognition, including her appointment by UNAIDS as a champion for the empowerment and engagement of adolescent girls and young women.
Now she is taking the conversation back to the United Nations. The proposed international day would not, by itself, end child marriage.
A date on the UN calendar cannot keep a girl in school, or protect her from an abusive household or change the circumstances that make families vulnerable to marrying off their daughters.
Those things require laws, enforcement, education, economic opportunity, social protection and changes in attitudes that can take generations.But international days can keep issues alive.
They create opportunities for governments, schools, civil society organisations, communities and international agencies to return to a problem every year, measure progress and remind themselves of what remains unfinished. That is the opportunity behind November 27.
This may also be the reason why the story of the little girl who nearly became a child bride is worth remembering when Fatima Maada Bio enters the General Assembly. She is no longer that girl.
She got education and became a journalist, an actress, an advocate, a mother, and Sierra Leone’s First Lady. She also became the President of the Organisation of African First Ladies for Development.
She is now asking the world to give millions of girls something she was fortunate enough to have: the chance to grow up and become all of that and even more before someone else decides what their lives should become.
That is what, on behalf of Sierra Leone and the world, she is carrying into the United Nations on September 4.
Not a speech or a title. She is carrying a powerful story the General Assembly should listen and act on.
• Ahmed Sahid Nasralla is the Ex-Officio and Immediate Past President of the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ), and the Chairman of the Federation of African Journalists (FAJ) Working Group on Climate Change.
Opinions
Is Dangote Refinery Playing the Giraffe by Leaving Domestic Oil Supply to Marketers?
Is Nigeria gradually returning to a situation where imported petrol is competing with locally refined PMS, even as Dangote Refinery has the capacity to supply a substantial portion of domestic demand?
[File Photo] Aliko Dangote
By Ochefa
WHEN I was younger, bedtime storytelling was one of my favourite pastimes in my family. After the evening meal, my mother would usually gather us together for this special treat.
Of all the fables she told us, one that has remained indelibly etched in my memory to this day was Why the Giraffe Eats from Tall Trees.
The story portrayed the giraffe as a humble and considerate animal. Because of its long neck, it could reach the leaves and branches of tall trees, leaving the grasses and shorter vegetation for sheep and goats whose shorter necks could not reach the higher branches.
So, what is the point?
Could the Dangote Petroleum Refinery be playing the giraffe in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum market—leaving marketers to supply the domestic market with imported Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), while it increasingly exports its refined products to other countries?
Recent developments in the petroleum industry appear to lend some credence to this question.
The management of Dangote Petroleum Refinery recently attributed its increased export volumes to rising imports of petrol into Nigeria.
The refinery said the decision to focus more on exports should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to the Nigerian market.
“Rather, exports are a prudent operational response to the realities of a market where imported products continue to compete with locally refined fuel despite the availability of sufficient domestic refining capacity,” the refinery said.
Figures from the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) appear to support the changing supply pattern.
According to the regulator’s recent report, Dangote Refinery’s supply of PMS to the domestic market fell by 21 per cent to 25.8 million litres per day in July, from 32.5 million litres per day in June.
The monthly factsheet showed that the refinery produced about 25.9 million litres of PMS per day in July and exported 3.4 million litres per day.
The July domestic supply figure was reportedly the lowest recorded by the refinery in 2026.
At the same time, petrol imports rose by nine per cent to 19.7 million litres per day, from 18.1 million litres per day in June.
These figures raise an important question: Is Nigeria gradually returning to a situation where imported petrol is competing with locally refined PMS, even as Dangote Refinery has the capacity to supply a substantial portion of domestic demand?
Dangote Refinery has expressed concern about the continued issuance of import licences for petroleum products. It maintains that it has demonstrated sufficient capacity to meet, and even exceed, Nigeria’s domestic PMS requirements.
The refinery said that although it remains committed to Nigeria’s energy security and uninterrupted fuel availability, the continued inflow of imported PMS has created uncertainty around domestic demand forecasting and inventory management.
According to the refinery, it has consistently maintained sufficient inventories and reserved product volumes to guarantee steady supplies to the Nigerian market since commencing operations.
That commitment, it said, has involved substantial investment in storage facilities, logistics and working capital to protect consumers from supply disruptions and market volatility.
Why Dangote Says It Is Exporting More
The refinery’s major concern appears to be the lack of transparency over the volume of imported petrol expected to enter the country.
Without reliable information on future import volumes, it argues, it becomes increasingly difficult to plan production and manage inventories efficiently.
Maintaining large stocks of petrol that may not be absorbed by the domestic market also comes with significant storage and financing costs.
“As a responsible energy provider, we have always endeavoured to keep adequate reserves to satisfy local demand at all times,” the refinery said.
However, where significant quantities of imported PMS continue to enter the market through licences issued by the regulator, and there is limited visibility on future import volumes, the refinery says it becomes commercially unsustainable to hold excess inventory indefinitely.
Its argument is straightforward: when locally refined products cannot be absorbed by the domestic market because of competing imports, the surplus must be moved elsewhere.
Hence, the increased exports.
The refinery insists that this does not mean Nigeria’s domestic market cannot be supplied. Rather, it says the exports are a response to market uncertainty created by competing imports.
It also warned that if supply shortages eventually occur because of market distortions caused by excessive importation and the resulting difficulty in forecasting domestic demand, such shortages should not automatically be blamed on Dangote Refinery.

The company maintains that it remains ready and capable of meeting and exceeding Nigeria’s petroleum product requirements.
Dangote’s Transparency Concern Is Genuine—Expert
Oil and gas expert Dr Ayodele Oni believes Dangote Refinery’s concern over transparency is legitimate.
According to him, Section 317 of the Petroleum Industry Act contemplates the issuance of import licences where there is a demonstrable shortfall.
But, he argued, a shortfall determination that is not published cannot easily be scrutinised.
“NMDPRA should publish, ex ante, the aggregate volume of import authorisations it has approved for each quarter and the shortfall assessment behind them. That is a modest reform and it costs the regulator nothing,” he said.
However, Oni cautioned against simply shutting out imports.
He pointed to the performance of the country’s government-owned refineries, noting that NNPC’s three refineries produced nothing in July.
“A single plant supplying nearly the entire national market, with imports switched off, is a structural risk, not an achievement,” he argued.
He added that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act exists to address such situations, stressing that regulatory policy should not be based on the assumption that a single refinery will never experience an unplanned outage.
According to him, the solution is structural: a transparent shortfall methodology, published quarterly import quotas, and the development of genuine second and third domestic refineries.
“Everything else is noise,” he said.
” The government cannot simultaneously encourage domestic refining, allow substantial imports without clearly communicating the basis for them, and expect refiners to maintain costly inventories indefinitely.”
Imports or Domestic Refining?
Another industry analyst and former Managing Director of 11PLC, formerly Mobil, Otunba Adetunji Oyebanji, believes Dangote Refinery is within its rights to export.
He argued that the government must retain the flexibility to import petroleum products whenever there is a potential shortfall.
“This is an internationally traded product,” he said, pointing out that even countries with substantial refining capacity, including the United States, continue to import petroleum products.
His argument is that economics, rather than sentiment, ultimately determines where petroleum products are bought and sold.
“We heard that Dangote exported to America. Don’t they have refineries?” he asked rhetorically.
For him, pricing remains a major determinant.
And therein lies the real issue.
The giraffe in my mother’s story was not merely tall; it was considerate. It reached the leaves that other animals could not reach and left the lower vegetation for them.
But Nigeria’s petroleum market is not a fable. Dangote Refinery is a commercial enterprise, not a charitable institution. It must make economically rational decisions, just as marketers and importers do.
The bigger question, therefore, is not whether Dangote Refinery should export.
It is whether Nigeria’s petroleum regulatory framework is creating the right conditions for locally refined products to compete fairly, while ensuring that consumers are protected and the country is not exposed to the risks of relying too heavily on a single refinery.
If Dangote has the capacity to meet domestic demand but finds it more commercially sensible to export because imported PMS is competing with its products at home, then the problem may be bigger than Dangote.
It may point to a regulatory and market-structure problem that requires urgent attention.
The government cannot simultaneously encourage domestic refining, allow substantial imports without clearly communicating the basis for them, and expect refiners to maintain costly inventories indefinitely.
There must be transparency.
There must also be competition.
And, most importantly, Nigeria needs more functioning refineries capable of supplying the domestic market.
Perhaps, then, the lesson from the giraffe is not that Dangote should leave the “grass” to the marketers.
It is that the rules of the forest must be clear enough for every animal to know where it stands.
Opinions
BREAKING: Lagos Govt Declares Today, Thursday Work-Free to Mark 2026 Ìṣẹ̀ṣe Day
The Lagos State Government has declared Thursday, August 20, 2026, a work-free day for public servants, political appointees and others to mark this year’s Ìṣẹ̀ṣe Day celebration.
The announcement was made by the Special Adviser to the Governor on Tourism, Arts and Culture, Idris Aregbe, in a statement on Wednesday. He described Ìṣẹ̀ṣe as “not a relic” but “a living expression of our traditions and a celebration of Yoruba spirituality as an important part of Nigeria’s cultural and religious landscape.”
Authorities expect the event to draw more than three million residents and traditional worshippers in what is billed as one of the largest gatherings of its kind. Celebrations will feature prayers, rituals, processions, drumming and cultural displays dedicated to the Òrìṣà, coordinated by the Association of African Traditional Religion Nigeria and Overseas.
Ìṣẹ̀ṣe Day has been observed as a work-free day in Lagos since 2023, following a request by the Lagos State Council of Obas and Chiefs. Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu has maintained the practice annually as part of the administration’s commitment to indigenous values and religious inclusiveness under the THEMES+ Agenda.
Normal government activities are expected to resume on Friday, August 21. Residents have been urged to celebrate peacefully and respectfully.
-
Health3 days agoOndo ‘Monkey Tail’ herbal drink kills 49
-
Business2 days agoEmir Sanusi mobilises Kano People “Buy Dangote Refinery’s Shares Now”
-
Business3 days agoNigerians Speak As Petrol sells N1,500/litre
-
News2 days agoDigital Economy Minister Says NDPC Now Properly Functional With New HQ
-
News2 days agoUK court jails Nigerian man for masturbating in front of a woman
-
Entertainment2 days agoMadonna Returns To MTV Video Music Awards, After 23 years
-
International1 day agoMacron Hosts Tinubu for Private Dinner at Élysée Palace (Photos)
