In a landmark judgment delivered on October 9, 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos has unequivocally affirmed the legal obligations of the Federal Government, Nigeria’s 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to provide free, compulsory, and universal basic education for every Nigerian child of primary and junior secondary school age. This significant ruling, handed down by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor, followed a lawsuit initiated by legal luminary Femi Falana (SAN) and Hauwa Mustapha, acting on behalf of themselves and the public interest group, the Alliance on Surviving Covid-19 and Beyond (ASCAB). The Federal Government, all 36 states, and the FCT were named as respondents in this pivotal case, the certified true copy of which was obtained recently.

The court’s decision delved into the intricacies of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act, 2004. Justice Osiagor clarified that while Section 11(2) of the Act indeed imposes a binding statutory duty on all tiers of government to ensure free and compulsory basic education within their respective jurisdictions, the decision for states and the FCT to access the Federal Government’s matching grants remains purely discretionary. Furthermore, the judgment stipulated that any state choosing to participate in this matching grant scheme must strictly adhere to Section 11(2) by contributing the mandated 50% counterpart funding before being able to draw from the Universal Basic Education Fund.

Justice Osiagor, in his detailed judgment, emphasized that Section 11(2) is "directory and conditional, not mandatory," concluding that a state’s failure to access the federal block grant does not, in itself, constitute an illegality. The court meticulously considered the Originating Summons, supporting affidavits, exhibits, and arguments presented by both the applicants and the various respondents, alongside provisions of the Compulsory, Free Universal Basic Education Act, 2004, the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and relevant judicial precedents.

The case revolved around three critical issues. Firstly, on the question of whether the applicants possessed the requisite locus standi to institute the action, the court sided with the applicants. It noted that while traditional interpretations of locus standi often demand direct personal injury, public interest litigation, especially when concerning broad societal interests such as children's educational rights, permits a more liberal approach. The judge underscored the right of citizens to ensure law enforcement in matters affecting public welfare and found that the applicants demonstrated genuine concern for children’s educational rights, substantiated by evidence of unaccessed federal education grants. Consequently, Issue One was resolved in favor of the applicants.

Secondly, the court addressed whether the right to free, compulsory, and universal basic education under Section 2(1) of the UBE Act, 2004, is enforceable and justiciable against the respondents. Some defendants contended that Section 18 of the Constitution, falling under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, is non-justiciable. However, Justice Osiagor firmly held that the enactment of the UBE Act effectively gives this right statutory backing, thereby making it enforceable in law. Citing comparative legal examples from India and Pakistan, the court affirmed that once legislation imposes obligations, these obligations become binding and cannot be disregarded. Thus, Sections 2(1) and 11(2) of the UBE Act were declared justiciable and legally binding on the respondents, resolving Issue Two in favor of the applicants.

Finally, the court examined whether the refusal or failure of states to contribute at least 50% counterpart funding and access the N68 billion Universal Basic Education Fund violates Section 11(2) of the UBE Act, 2004. The applicants had argued that Section 11(2) imposes a mandatory duty, and non-compliance undermines the educational scheme, contributing to the high number of out-of-school children. However, the court found the obligation to be conditional, not absolute. Section 11(2) applies only to states that elect to access the federal block grant. The UBE Act explicitly characterizes the Federal Government’s contribution as "assistance" to states and local governments, implying it can be declined without penal consequences. The statutory duty to provide basic education under Section 2(1) remains independent of accessing these federal grants. Therefore, states that opt not to participate in the UBE Fund are not in violation of Section 11(2), provided they continue to fulfill their fundamental obligation to fund basic education. The court concluded that while such refusal might be "unwise or undesirable from a policy perspective," it is not illegal under Section 11(2) of the UBE Act, unless the state demonstrably fails altogether to provide basic education in line with Section 2(1) of the Act and relevant Child's Rights laws.