The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction and Its Application to International Crimes Committed in Nigeria

This paper examines the principle of universal jurisdiction and its potential application to international crimes committed in Nigeria, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Universal jurisdiction allows states to prosecute perpetrators of certain heinous crimes regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the offender or victim, based on the nature of the crime itself. Using a doctrinal methodology, the research analyses the theoretical and legal basis for universal jurisdiction in customary international law and treaty law, drawing on the Lotus case, the Arrest Warrant case, and scholarly debate on the scope of the principle. The paper examines documented international crimes in Nigeria, including summary executions, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence committed during the Boko Haram conflict and related security operations, and considers whether third states could legitimately exercise universal jurisdiction over perpetrators. It evaluates the political and diplomatic sensitivities involved in such exercises of jurisdiction, including the African Union's concerns about selective prosecution of African nationals by Western states. The study also assesses whether Nigeria's own courts have the legal authority and practical capacity to apply universal jurisdiction provisions in its domestic law. Findings indicate that universal jurisdiction, while theoretically applicable, faces significant practical barriers in the Nigerian context, including evidence challenges, sovereignty objections, and limited domestic legislative implementation. Recommendations include legislative clarification of universal jurisdiction in Nigerian criminal law and engagement with the African Union's position on the principle. Keywords: universal jurisdiction, international crimes, war crimes, Nigeria, ICC.