The recent decision of a Grade A Customary Court sitting in Mapo, Ibadan, dissolving a six-year domestic relationship between Ms. Sherifat Olasunkanmi and her estranged partner, Ahmed, over allegations of repeated violent attacks, brings into sharp focus critical gaps in Nigeria’s legal framework on domestic violence and cohabitation.
While the facts of the case are troubling, particularly allegations of recurring threats involving a screwdriver, the legal implications of which extend far beyond the parties, raising fundamental questions about protection, recognition, and justice within informal unions.
Cohabitation Without Legal Recognition
A central finding of the Court was that the relationship between the parties did not amount to a valid customary marriage, owing to the absence of essential elements such as:
- Payment of bride price
- Formal handing over of the bride
This conclusion reflects settled Nigerian law: cohabitation alone does not constitute marriage, regardless of duration or the existence of children.
Unlike some jurisdictions where “common law marriage” or civil partnerships are recognised, Nigerian law offers no comprehensive legal framework governing cohabiting partners. Consequently, individuals in such relationships often find themselves in a legal vacuum, especially when disputes arise.
Domestic Violence Beyond Formal Marriage
The allegations in this case underscore an important reality: domestic violence is not confined to legally recognised marriages.
Nigeria’s principal legislation in this area, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015 (VAPP Act), adopts a broader approach. It criminalises various forms of violence, including physical, emotional, and psychological, regardless of the formal status of the relationship between the parties.
However, a major limitation persists: the VAPP Act applies directly only within the Federal Capital Territory unless domesticated by individual states. While some states have adopted similar laws, coverage remains uneven across the federation.
Even where applicable, enforcement challenges ranging from cultural attitudes to weak institutional response, often limit the effectiveness of these protections.
The Protection Gap for Cohabiting Partners
The Ibadan case highlights a structural gap: while criminal law may address acts of violence, civil remedies and protective frameworks for cohabiting partners remain underdeveloped.
Key issues include:
- Absence of spousal rights: Cohabiting partners lack enforceable rights akin to those of legally married spouses.
- Limited access to protective orders: While courts can issue restraining orders, these are not always systematically integrated into domestic violence response mechanisms.
- Property and financial uncertainty: There is no clear legal regime governing property distribution or financial obligations between cohabiting partners.
This legal vacuum often leaves victims vulnerable and without comprehensive remedies.
Custody and the Paramountcy of the Child’s Welfare
Despite the informal nature of the union, the Court correctly applied the principle of the best interest of the child, awarding custody to the mother while imposing financial responsibility on the father.
This aligns with established Nigerian jurisprudence, where the welfare of the child is paramount, irrespective of the marital status of the parents.
The decision reinforces the position that parental responsibility subsists independently of the legal validity of the relationship between the parents.
Judicial Intervention as a Stopgap
The Court’s issuance of a restraining order against further harassment reflects the judiciary’s role as a frontline responder to domestic conflict, particularly in the absence of robust statutory frameworks.
However, such case-by-case interventions, while necessary, are insufficient to address systemic deficiencies.
Comparative Insight: Recognising Informal Unions
In several jurisdictions, including parts of Europe and North America, the law has evolved to recognise civil partnerships or cohabitation rights, providing:
- Legal recognition of long-term relationships
- Access to protective remedies
- Defined property and financial rights
- Enhanced safeguards against domestic abuse
Nigeria’s reluctance to adopt similar frameworks may be rooted in cultural and religious considerations, but the practical consequences—particularly for vulnerable partners—are increasingly difficult to ignore.
The Need for Legislative and Policy Reform
The Ibadan decision serves as a compelling case study for reform. Key policy directions may include:
- Expanding domestic violence protections nationwide, through uniform adoption and enforcement of the VAPP Act or equivalent laws
- Developing a legal framework for cohabitation, particularly for long-term unions involving children
- Strengthening access to protection orders and victim support services
- Public education and institutional reform, to shift societal attitudes toward domestic abuse
Such reforms would not legitimise cohabitation per se but would ensure that individuals are not left without protection simply because their relationships fall outside formal legal categories.
Conclusion: Law Must Reflect Social Reality
The law cannot afford to ignore the lived realities of millions of Nigerians who live in informal unions. While marriage remains the legally recognised foundation of family life, cohabitation is an undeniable social fact.
Where violence occurs within such relationships, the legal system must respond not with silence or technicality, but with clarity, protection, and justice.
The Ibadan Customary Court has taken a necessary step in addressing the immediate dispute. The larger question remains whether Nigeria’s legal framework is adequately equipped to deal with the broader realities the case represents.
