The Federal High Court in Lagos has delivered a landmark judgment affirming that the Federal Government, the 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, delivered on October 9, 2025 by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor, followed a suit instituted by members of the Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond (ASCAB), a public interest group seeking to enforce the rights of children under the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act, 2004. The case was filed by Femi Falana (SAN) and Hauwa Mustapha on behalf of the organisation.
A certified true copy of the judgment was obtained on Wednesday, according to Tayo Soyemi of Falana and Falana Chambers. The Federal Government, the 36 states, and the FCT were listed as respondents.
Justice Osiagor ruled that while Section 11(2) of the Universal Basic Education Act places a statutory duty on governments to provide free and compulsory basic education, decisions by states to access or decline the Federal Government’s matching grants remain discretionary.
The court 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,” adding 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.”
In the judgment, the court stated:
“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 court distilled three issues for resolution:
1. Whether the Applicant possesses the requisite locus standi to institute the action
2. Whether the right to free, compulsory and universal basic education under Section 2(1) of the UBE Act is enforceable and justiciable
3. Whether refusal by states to contribute 50% counterpart funds and access the N68 billion UBE Fund violates the Act
On locus standi, Justice Osiagor ruled in favour of the applicants, noting that public interest groups may institute actions on issues affecting broad societal interests. The court held that ASCAB demonstrated genuine concern for children’s educational rights and showed evidence that several states had not accessed available education grants. “Issue One was accordingly resolved in favour of the applicants.”
On the enforceability of the right to free basic education, the court dismissed arguments that the right is non-justiciable under the Constitution. It held that the UBE Act gives the right statutory backing, making it enforceable. Justice Osiagor cited comparative examples from India and Pakistan, ruling that Sections 2(1) and 11(2) of the UBE Act are legally binding. The court therefore resolved the second issue in favour of the applicants.
On the third issue, regarding access to the N68 billion UBE Fund, the judge ruled that the obligation to contribute 50% counterpart funding is conditional. While failure to access grants may be “unwise or undesirable from a policy perspective,” it is not illegal unless a state fails entirely to provide basic education.
The court stated:
“It follows that the failure of a State to access the Federal matching grant may be unwise or undesirable from a policy perspective, but it is not, in itself, illegal under Section 11(2) of the UBE Act. The statutory duty imposed on States is to provide free, compulsory, and universal basic education (Section 2(1)); the Act does not render the means of achieving that goal i.e., through Federal assistance compulsory.”
The court added that refusal to access grants becomes unlawful only if a state “has altogether failed to provide basic education, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Act and the Child’s Rights laws enacted in each State.”
