Feminist Legal Theory and the Adjudication of Gender-Based Violence in Nigerian Courts: A Critical Analysis

This doctoral research conducts a critical feminist legal theory analysis of judicial adjudication of gender-based violence cases in Nigerian courts, developing an original evaluative framework and generating systematic empirical evidence on how gender ideology shapes judicial reasoning, evidence assessment, and sentencing in GBV prosecutions. Feminist legal scholarship has extensively documented how ostensibly neutral legal doctrines and judicial reasoning in GBV cases systematically disadvantage survivor-complainants through myths about credibility, consent, and provocation. In Nigeria, the VAPP Act 2015 introduced important legislative advances, yet empirical research on how these advances have translated into judicial practice remains scarce. The research employs a critical feminist doctrinal methodology, combining systematic qualitative analysis of 80 judicial decisions in rape, domestic violence, and sexual assault cases decided in Nigerian courts across four geopolitical zones from 2016 to 2024 with semi-structured interviews of GBV prosecution lawyers, survivor advocates, and female judges. Thematic coding of judicial language, evidence assessment patterns, and sentencing outcomes is conducted, applying MacKinnon's dominance theory, Naffine's feminist jurisprudence framework, and the CEDAW Committee's General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence. Findings reveal persistent judicial rape myth acceptance, systematic credibility challenges directed at survivors, and inadequate application of VAPP Act sentencing guidance. The dissertation advances an original Feminist Judicial Literacy Framework for Nigerian GBV adjudication. Keywords: feminist legal theory, gender-based violence, judicial adjudication, VAPP Act, Nigeria.