Neuroscience, Criminal Responsibility, and Human Rights in Nigerian Courts: Toward a Biologically Informed Jurisprudence

This doctoral research explores the intersection of advances in neuroscience, doctrines of criminal responsibility, and human rights in the Nigerian criminal justice system, developing an original biologically informed jurisprudential framework that challenges the current volitional and cognitive criminal responsibility paradigm. Recent developments in behavioral neuroscience, including functional neuroimaging studies of decision-making, impulse control, and adolescent brain development, raise profound questions about the voluntariness and cognitive completeness assumptions underlying Nigerian criminal law's mens rea requirements. These questions intersect with human rights norms on fair trial, prohibition of cruel punishment, and the rights of children in conflict with the law. The research employs a theoretical-doctrinal methodology, engaging with neuroscientific literature, philosophy of action, and Nigerian criminal law doctrine to construct a model of biologically informed criminal responsibility assessment. Particular attention is given to the implications of neuroscience for three Nigerian legal domains: juvenile criminal responsibility, insanity defence under the Criminal and Penal Codes, and death penalty proportionality analysis for defendants with documented neurological impairments. Comparative analysis draws on US Supreme Court Eighth Amendment neurobiological jurisprudence, the UK Supreme Court's mental capacity decisions, and South African constitutional court proportionality review. The dissertation advances an original Biological Mitigation Doctrine for Nigerian criminal sentencing, compatible with the constitutional prohibition of inhuman treatment. This research makes a pioneering original contribution to Nigerian criminal human rights jurisprudence. Keywords: neuroscience, criminal responsibility, human rights, criminal jurisprudence, Nigeria.