The present legal framework on Nigerian citizenship and acquisition can be found in chapter III, sections 25-32 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Alteration Act 2011. Section 25, (1 (A) provides as follows:
“The following persons are citizens of Nigeria by birth: (a) Every person born in Nigeria before the date of Independence (1st October, 1960) either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria.”
This means that: (i) Every person born in Nigeria before the date of Independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria as presently constituted is a Nigerian citizen; (ii) Every person born in Nigeria after the date of Independence either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria is a Nigerian citizen; and (iii) Every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of Nigeria is equally a Nigerian citizen.
In view of the above, any person born in Nigeria, provided that either of the parents or any of the grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria by birth, is a citizen. Grandchildren of Nigerians are citizens, even though they are born outside Nigeria, provided they did not renounce their Nigerian citizenship at full age and capacity.
The problem with this section is that, for practical purpose, immigration officers at the land border in Nigeria have a problem implementing the constitutional provision of the phrase “belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria”.
Nigeria Immigration Service duty map shows the immigration service personnel’s presence surrounding the whole country Nigeria. In some places we have immigration control post in the forest or in the centre of town that spans from Nigeria into neighbouring countries. Identifying and separating Nigerian citizens as duty calls by the Nigeria immigration official is a hard task because of similarities in look, common ancestors or lineage, common markets, culture and socio-economic interactions by border communities who are intermarrying and civilizing together.
In her book ‘Introduction to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999’, the late Jadesola Akande, a professor, stated that presumably a Cameroonian could claim to have belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria – after all, some part of Cameroon was previously part of Nigeria.
Read also: Making Nigeria medical tourism destination
I think that, indeed, any African from any part of the continent, especially Sahelian and Sudano Sahel region, who are from communities similar to communities indigenous to Nigeria, can claim to be a Nigerian because he “belongs or belonged” to a community that is indigenous to Nigeria as well. Many of the people in the border communities are members of communities indigenous to both countries and as such are legally free to take advantage of the constitutional provision without any measure of legal commitment or loyalty to Nigeria or belief in its values and aspirations. This is because there is affinity, cultural and linguistic homogeneity among them.
For example, a Chadian Fulani who joins the Fulani community of Nigeria could claim “belonging” to a community indigenous to Nigeria, although he is a Chadian. The same thing goes for a Cameroonian Fulani when in Nigeria, and likewise Egun people in Benin Republic having similar community of their kith and kin in Badagry area of Lagos. The same goes for Barubas in Borgu, Kwara State, who have their kith and kin in northern Benin Republic around the Paraku area. Ditto for the communities around the Nigerian border in Kebbi State, such as the Zabarama people. The Yoruba are all over West Africa, e.g., in Benin, Togo, Ghana, and Cote d’Ivoire. Same goes for the Fulani and the Hausa who are scattered in Cameroon, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso; and the Kanuri who are in Chad Republic; the Ijaw in the coastal areas across West Africa, among numerous others. All of these intermarry and civilize together regardless of any legal framework in place for or against them.
It was on the basis of this provision that the case of Shugaba Darman v The Minister of Internal Affairs & ORS (1981) 2 NCLR 459 succeeded. The plaintiff was a principal member of Bornu State House of Assembly in the 2nd Republic. He had a problem then and the government decided to deport him. He accepted in court that his father was a Chadian but claimed that his mother was a Nigerian of the Kanuri tribe, a community or tribe equally indigenous to both Chad and Nigeria. Once this was proved, he was given the rights and privileges of being a Nigerian citizen.
According to Oye Adefila in Shugaba’s case, the court held that once it is proven that a person is a Nigerian citizen, he cannot be deported from Nigeria. And it is further held by Lord Devlin, in Rookes v Benard (1964) 1 All N.L.R, that any unlawful deportation or unlawful interference of fundamental rights of a Nigerian citizen attracts compensatory and exemplary damages. In the event of any legal friction and challenges by this kind of “citizens”, their successful challenge will attract exemplary damages and heavy compensation from our financial resources as a nation.
Daniel Daudu Makolo
