A Theory of Proportionality in Nigerian Constitutional Adjudication: Borrowing, Adaption, and Originality

Proportionality analysis has become the dominant analytical framework for constitutional rights adjudication in most modern constitutional democracies, providing structured methodological tools for evaluating government limitations on fundamental rights. Nigerian courts have drawn on proportionality reasoning in a selective and inconsistent manner, without developing a coherent doctrinal framework that reflects Nigeria's constitutional text, institutional context, and social values. This doctoral research develops an original theory of proportionality for Nigerian constitutional adjudication, making a foundational scholarly contribution to this undertheorised area of Nigerian constitutional law. An extended doctrinal methodology is employed, systematically analysing all identifiable Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions engaging with proportionality reasoning from 1999 to 2024, alongside a normative theoretical analysis drawing on Alexy's theory of rights, African constitutionalism, and indigenous Nigerian jurisprudential traditions. Comparative analysis examines proportionality doctrine in South Africa, India, and Kenya as reference points for calibrating a contextually appropriate Nigerian framework. Secondary sources include constitutional theory scholarship, comparative constitutional law texts, and African legal philosophy from 2015 to 2024. The research makes three original scholarly contributions: a systematic empirical map of Nigerian proportionality jurisprudence; an original Nigerian Proportionality Framework incorporating a legitimacy of purpose test, suitability inquiry, necessity assessment, and proportionality stricto sensu adapted to Nigerian constitutional values; and a critical assessment of methodological transplantation risks. Keywords: proportionality, constitutional adjudication, fundamental rights, Nigeria, constitutional theory.