Total pages: 13pages
Chapter one introduces the topic.
Chapter two explains IDP and the causes of internal displacement.
Chapter three talked about the challenges facing the IDPs in Nigeria, and the implications of the challenges.
Chapter four gives the solution to internal displacement in Nigeria.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1 WHO IS AN INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON?
2.2 CAUSES OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT IN NIGERIA
- CHALLENGES FACING THE IDPs IN NIGERIA
3.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHALLENGES FOR COUNSELING
4.1 SOLUTIONS TO INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT
There is no doubt that the rule of law is unambiguously enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. The only surprising thing to any competent individual is the blatant disrespect shown to this constitutional provision by Nigerian rulers who had openly sworn to uphold it. From the backdrop of several cases of unjustifiable arrests, unfair trials, executive lawlessness, suppression of free speech and undue domination of minorities, this paper attempts to defend the thesis that Nigerian rulers have become sybaritic in their conscious reduction of the concept of the rule of law to a mere constitutional myth and never a reality that it was intended to be.
Law can be conceived as the express formulation of enforceable rules by the appropriate law-making body in a society, for the purpose of balancing and safe-guarding individual and the collective interests. Thomas Davitt (1959) defines law as a directive judgement formed by the law-making authority. According to McLean and McMillan (2003), law means the body of rules enforced by any sovereign state. But philosophically, can we accept any rule enforced by any state as a law? Or, is positive law the only type of law which exists? Must a rule, in order to be called a law, conform to certain universal principles or precepts? And lastly, what is the relationship between laws in the legal sense and scientific sense? In tackling the above posers, it must be observed that there are two great divides: the legal naturalists, on one hand and the legal positivists, on the other hand. In this paper, we shall not be concerned with the position of the legal naturalists. The reason for this position has a lot to do with the subjective requirements or reasoning of the natural law, which necessarily include appeals to the Absolute and other religious revelation and wild claims.
The grounds for rejecting natural laws are obvious: they are incompatible with legal objectivity. That is, they are not dependent on the actions of particular legislators, and, in most cases, are derivable from religious revelation. Thus, natural laws cannot be regarded as proper laws. According to legal positivism, only positive laws which basically form the rule of law exist. Laws are, therefore, made by legislators; they do not exist, awaiting discovery, before a law-making act takes place. Moralizing about what the law ought to be is thus a logically separate activity from discovering or deciding what the law is.
Legal positivism as a sound legal doctrine has continued to dominate the thinking about law since the time of William Blackstone in the eighteenth-century. From the nineteenth-century to date, great thinkers like John Austin, John Finnis, Nikolai Lenin and H. L. A. Hart have consistently and convincingly presented legal positivism as the paradigm of what should pass for law. The important thing to note about law whether from the perspective of the naturalists or positivists is that the law and legal structures exist to prevent one person from enjoying his liberty unchecked at the expense of the other person (Azikiwe, 1958). This assumption shall form the focus of this discussion.
Click here to get full article…
How useful was this post?
Click on a star to rate it!
Average rating / 5. Vote count: