The Federal High Court in Lagos in a landmark judgment has ruled that the Federal Government, the country’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) “have the legal obligations to provide free, compulsory and universal basic education for every Nigerian child of primary and junior secondary school age.”
The judgment was delivered on October 9 2025 by Hon. Justice D.E Osiagor following the lawsuit filed by Femi Falana SAN and Hauwa Mustapha (suing for themselves and on behalf of Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond).
The Federal Government, the 36 states and the FCT were the respondents in the suit.
In his judgment, Justice Osiagor held that, The court also ruled 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 also held that, “any State that elects to participate must comply strictly with Section 11(2) by contributing 50% counterpart funds before drawing from the Universal Basic Education.”
Justice Osiagor’s judgment, read in part: “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.”
“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 Issue One – Whether the Applicant possesses the requisite locus standi to institute this action It is trite that locus standi touches on the jurisdiction of the Court, and once absent, the suit must collapse.”
“The Applicants brought this action on behalf of the Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond (ASCAB), a public interest group, contending that where fundamental public rights are involved, strict personal injury is not required. Our courts have evolved a more liberal approach to locus standi in public interest litigation.”
“The Court of Appeal held as follows: ‘The issue of locus standi is a question which in my view our courts have tried to construe in a narrow sense and have tendered to regard anyone who institutes an action in which he is not directly involved but perhaps circumstantially or inferentially connected as a busybody.”
“It needs the courage, wisdom and proper understanding of our socialeconomic environment for an activist Judge to widen the scope of the law on Locus Standi. Some Judge and advocates have shown some trepidation in handling this matter.”
“I believe we have to take the bull by the horn and do justice to a matter before the court without bending overly backwards because a matter is on boarder-line in respect of whether the initiator of an action has the standing order to do so.”
“I think that where the cause is laudable and will bring peace, justice and orderliness that will reflect the spirit of the Constitution then we should not shirk our responsibility in this area to help in advancing the cause of Social, Economic and Cultural matters as they affect this society.”
“The development of the law of locus standi has been retarded extensively due to fear of floodgate or persons meddling into matters not even remotely connected with them. In my opinion, let them meddle and let the court remove the wheat from the chaff.”
“I believe that it is the right of any citizen to see that law is enforced where there is an infraction of that right or a threat of its being violated in matters affecting the public law and in some cases of private law such as where widows, orphans are deprived, and a section of the society will be adversely affected by doing nothing.”
“In the present case, the Applicants are citizens of Nigeria while the first Applicant is a Senior legal practitioner and Human Right activist practising in Nigeria concerned with access to education, a right which, though situated under Chapter II of the Constitution, has been given legislative expression by the enactment of the UBE Act, 2004.”
