INTRODUCTION:
The above subject matter balls down to the fact that the present economic and political realities of Nigeria as it stand call for reflection on the propriety or otherwise of section 13, 14,15,16, 17,18,19, 20 to 24 of the 1999 constitution.

The effect of same in Nigerian political, economic, social and cultural setting will critically be analyzed by making references to both local and international instruments.

A cursory glance at the chapter II of the 1999 constitution will give one an insight that the whole of them in the constitution of Nigeria made up of 12 sections spanning section 13 to 24 contain the political, economic, social, cultural, and developmental rights of the citizens are not justiciable by virtue of section 6(6)(c) of the same constitution.
The examination of the implications of such non-justiciability shows that citizens can’t obtain redress from the courts if denied the socioeconomic rights, developmental and other rights provided for in this chapter of the constitution.
It is therefore, a veritable and formidable impediment to socioeconomic rights advancement and justiciability.
Furthermore, the continuation of non- enforceability of chapter II of CFRN may result to lack of development and non- accountability by the executive and legislative arms of government; without any hope of successful challenge.
It is further found that some African countries like: South Africa and Ghana made those rights enforceable relying on African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
By clarification on this, the provisions of the African Charter on Human and people’s Rights, particularly, Article 17 & 20 provide on the needs respectively to enforce the economic, political, cultural and other developmental rights. Article 17 of the charter provides:
a. Every individual shall have the right to education;
b. Every individual may freely take part in the cultural life of his community;
c. The promotion and protection of morals and traditional values recognized by the community shall be the duty of the state.
To further consolidate these rights, Article 20 of same provides:
“All people should have the right to existence, they should have the unquestionable and inalienable rights to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their social and economic development according to the policy they have freely chosen”
On the other hand, flowing in the same direction with the above, the Universal Declaration of of Human Rights which is in pari materia with the African Charter on Human and people’s Rights, particularly, Articles 17 & 20 provide:
“Everyone as a member of society has the right to social security and is entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”.
These instruments have given life to the justiciability of economic rights and had been given due credence by courts in the above mentioned countries.
Turning to South Africa, the South African constitutional court has remained in the forefront of judicial intervention in socioeconomic rights matters, but not even the must celebrated Grootboom’s case has gone devoid of criticism. In the case, the Respondents were evicted from their homes on private land earmarked for formal low- cost housing. They consequently applied to the High Court, pursuant to section 26 and 28(1)(c) of the constitution of South Africa for an order compelling the Government to provide them with basic shelter or housing until they get their permanent accommodation, the court found for them irrespective of availability of resources because their need of survival was pressing and demanding.
The court equally, gave some ancillary orders to ensure compliance with the orders. The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision of the High court, appealed to the constitutional Court of South Africa. The court however, substituted the decision of the High Court and ordered inter- alia; section 26(2) of the constitution requires the state to devise and implement within its available resources a comprehensive and coordinated programme to realize the right of adequate housing. A cursory look of the above points to the fact that though the constitutionalization and judicialization of socioeconomic rights had been firmly incorporated into the constitution of South Africa but its implementation and realization has somewhat been made subject to the modalities to be adopted by the state in enforcement of same.
The constitutional Court of South Africa didn’t totally deviate from the dint and purports of sections 26 and 28(1)(c) of the constitution of south Africa cum the rationale for the decision in Grootboom’s case in favour of the applicant rather it merely paved a leeway through which the enforceability of these rights need government intervention as a balance of convenience in governance.The incorporation of these rights into the constitution of south African remained the bedrock of economic and political development thereby promoting the both executive and legislative arms to set all the necessary political and institutional machineries in motion for the realization of same in south Africa.
Turning to Ghana, formerly, the socioeconomic rights enforcement in Ghana is one that has been give less regards and significance historically by the Ghana’s 1979 constitution.
However, the significance of socioeconomic rights only became profound with the return of democratic rule under the 1992 constitution of Ghana.
It took the supreme Court of Ghana a series of landmark decisions, until finally, in 2008, it arrived at a presumption of justiciability in respect of all the provisions in the 1992 constitution.
It is evident that prior to this, the supreme Court of Ghana wasn’t willing to apply the same standard of adjudication and enforcement as ordinarily applies in respect of rights under the chapter on fundamental human Rights and freedoms.
Having surmounted the non-justiciability hurdle, what is left for the courts is to begin to vigorously pursue an agenda that puts socioeconomic rights at the centre of Ghanians’ rights adjudication framework.
It can then safely be concluded however, that socioeconomic rights have now formed part of the Ghana’s 1992 constitution thereby making these rights enforceable for the betterment of her citizens.
Turning to one of the Asian countries,
Particularly, India.
Taking a glean of the status of socioeconomic rights in India, the socioeconomic rights had been made a constitutional right in India which is embedded in her citizens’ fundamental rights.
This had indeed, encouraged and extolled the crucial nature of life’s necessities though a second generation rights, making them a precondition for peace and harmonious living.
The socioeconomic rights in India had far been entrenched in the constitution of India and made justiciable. The Directive principles of state policy are contained in part IV, Articles 36 – 50 of the Indian constitution.
Many of its provisions correspond with the provisions of International covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural rights; particularly, Article 43 provides that the state shall endeavor to secure by suitable legislation or economic organization or any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial, or otherwise a living wage, conditions of work, ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure , social and cultural opportunities. This corresponds more or less with Articles 11 and 15 of the International Covenant for Economic, social and Cultural rights.
However, some of the provisions of the international covenant, particularly, Article 12 which gives a citizen right to adequate health facility; this had been interpreted by the supreme Court of India to form part of the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution of India, hence, making it directly enforceable.
The scope and extent of the fundamental rights to life and liberty pursuant to Article 21 was interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN’s case to include some integral rights which are the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading and expressing oneself in a diverse form. The component and magnitude of these rights would depend upon the extent of economic development of the country but it must in any view of the matter includes the necessaries of life and also the right to carry-on such functions and activities as to constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.
In furtherance of the supreme Court of India to ensure a balanced and free flow of rotation to all her citizens, in compliance with Articles 38,39 & 46 of the Indian constitution.
The court equally declared in the case of Ahmedabab municipal corporation Vs Nawab khan Gulab inter- alia:
“it is the mandate of the state, as its economic policy, to provide socioeconomic justice to minimize inequalities in income and in opportunities and status ”.
It positively charges the state to distribute its largesse to the weaker sections of the society envisaged in Article 46 to make socioeconomic justice a reality, meaningful and fruitful so as to make life worth living with dignity of person and equality of status and to constantly improve excellence.
In giving broader scope to fundamental right to life, Article 47 of the Indian constitution went further to impose a duty on the state to improve public health.
The court has always interpreted right to health to be an integral part of right to life as demonstrated by the court in consumer Education and Research centre Vs Union of India. In this case, the court tackled the problem of health workers in the asbestos industry , noticing that long years of exposure to harmful chemicals could result in debilitating asbestosis, the court mandated compulsory insurance for every worker as enforcement of workers’ fundamental rights to health.
In breathing more life to the above rights notion, a host of protective and welfare-oriented labour legislations, including the bonded Labour ( Abolition Act) and the minimum wages Act, were being observed by extensive directions to the state Government to enable it discharge its constitutional obligation towards the bonded labourers.
The court while analyzing generally the fundamental nature of right to life in Bandha Mukti morcha Vs Union of India, made the following pronouncements:
the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive principles of state policy and particularly, clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 , 41 and 42 and at least, therefore it must include: protection of health and strength of workers, men and women and the tender aged children against abuse , opportunities, and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
The above facilities are ones aptly puts by the supreme Court of India to be the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no state has any right to take any action that would deprive a person from the enjoyment of these basic essentials.
In this wise, the aforementioned discourse, signifies the justiciability and enforceability of socioeconomic rights in India.
SOCIOECONOMIC RIGHTS REGIME IN NIGERIA:
For Nigeria being a – still- evolving democratic country with a claim of constitutionalism, is a signatory to several international instruments. The most apparent is the Africa charter on Human and people’s rights ( Ratification and Enforcement Act) which made several economic and social rights justiciable by virtue of section 12(1) of the 1999 constitution being the domestication.
Although, Nigerian courts had over the time paid deaf ear to socioeconomic rights claims commenced strictly by international instruments, despite the obligation of compliance being placed on them by the African charter on human and people’s rights( Ratification and Enforcement Act), by virtue of Nigeria being a member state to the treaty.
The justiciability of socioeconomic rights under the African charter appears to be at loggerheads with the sacrosanct provisions of section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 constitution which seems to be the main clog in the wheel of socioeconomic rights enforcement under both African charter and the constitution in Nigeria.
The supremacy clause under the constitution of Nigeria pursuant to section 1(3) negates the enforceability of such rights.
This balls down to the fact that the constitution is the alpha and the omega of this land, the fons et origo, the barometer upon which all laws are measured; this beacon of light was projected by His Lordship Hon. Justice Niki Tobi JSC of blessed memory as he then was in A.G ABIA Vs A.G FED.
It was equally very recently reiterated by the supreme Court through Hon. Justice Samuel Walter Nkanu onnoghen CJN as he then was in SARAKI Vs FRN; where he held thus:
“ wherever and whenever the constitution speaks, any other law remain silent”
The conflict between the constitution of Nigeria and African charter as regards enforcement of fundamental rights was before the supreme Court in Abacha Vs Fawehinmi. In this case, the supreme Court observed that although, Nigeria being a member state of Ecowas and by Ecowas’s supplementary protocol, Article 9(4), Nigeria has a duty to honour any human right treaty ( including the African charter) it has entered into and incorporated in its municipal laws.
But the supremacy inline with section 1(3) of the constitution creates the barrier of enforcing those rights for they are inconsistent with the 1999 constitution.
Turning to enforceability of socioeconomic rights under the African charter, the Ecowas court in SERAP Vs FRN, this will serve as a reference point. The plaintiffs’ contentions in this case, include, simply that as a result of oil prospecting in Niger Delta, the region has suffered for decades from oil spills, which destroy crops and damage the quality and productivity of soil that communities use for farming and contaminates water that people use for fishing , drinking, and other domestic and economic purposes.
It was equally, contended that as a result, it will affect the lives of the people who are denied access to basic health care, education, drinking water.
The Ecowas court, thus gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, thus, the Federal government as a state party to the African charter is under international obligation to recognize the rights, duties, and freedoms enshrined in the charter and to undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them.
Though, there have been failure by the Federal Republic of Nigeria to adopt any of the ” other ” measures required by the said Article 1 of the African charter to ensure the enjoyment of rights laid down in Article 24 of the charter.
It is important to note that, the decisions in Abacha Vs Fawehinmi and Serap Vs Frn have serious implications on both national and international constitutionalism.
As far as the decision of the supreme Court is concerned, contrary to the decision of Ecowas court, the Nigerian constitution is supreme and its provisions override any treaty.
It is in this respect that, the enforceability and implementation of socioeconomic rights are been impeded and clogged and hence, it can’t be justiciable unless and until the non- justiciability clause is being reviewed for the betterment of Nigerians and equally the advancement of socioeconomic distribution and democracy so as to stand the test of modern governance as being practiced and operated in some develop countries.
RECOMMENDATION:
it is crystal clear from the above excerpts analyzed that Nigeria is far lagging behind socioeconomically, politically and culturally in the advancement of modern democracy due to non- enforceability of socioeconomic rights.
This have indeed, impeded and clogged up the wheel of development in Nigerian democratic setting which invariably calls for the review of chapter II of the constitution so as to meet the ever- emerging social rights, this will alleviate and meet the yearnings and demands of Nigerian populace. Governance is ultimately a social contract between the government and the governs which must be upheld.
Where without any reasonable reason this golden principle is not met/ achieved then the essence of governance is defeated.
CONCLUSION:
The Nigerian political landscape has failed to appreciate the dividends of democracy to some extent because of the negative underlying concept of non-justiciability clause with respect to socioeconomic rights inherent in the constitution.
Conversely, some countries like India, South Africa and Ghana didn’t only made these rights justiciable but went ahead to constitutionalize and codify these rights, as a result of that no controversy will ever arise therefrom regarding their constitutionality and enforceability.
It is in this wise, that I call for the review of chapter II of the 1999 constitution thereby making them justiciable so as to meet the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians thereby taking the nation politically and economically to a state of ivory- tower.
REFERENCES:

1. 1999 constitution
2. Africa charter on human and people’s rights ( Ratification and Enforcement Act)
3. Constitution of Ghana

4. Constitution of South Africa

5. Constitution of india.

6. Abacha Vs Fawehinmi

7. Serap Vs Frn
8. Saraki Vs FRN
9. Grootboom’s case

10. Francis Coralie mullin’s case
11. Bandha mukti morcha Vs Union of India

12. Consumer education and Research centre Vs Union of India
13. A.G Abia Vs A.G Fed.

14. Ecowas supplementary protocol.

Rilwan saidu salihu is a Level 500 law student of Bayero university, Kano.
He can be reached through: 08135966752,
[email protected].
5th of January, 2020.