1.1 Introduction
The interplay between customary laws and the judiciary has been a focal point of legal discourse in Nigeria, especially with the advent of the repugnancy doctrine. This doctrine serves as a critical filter through which customary laws are assessed in relation to established legal norms and human rights standards. The judiciary's interpretation of the repugnancy doctrine significantly impacts the recognition and application of customary laws, often reshaping traditional practices to align with constitutional values and contemporary societal standards¹.
In Nigeria, where a diverse array of ethnic groups and their respective customs coexist, the challenge lies in balancing the respect for cultural practices with the necessity of ensuring that these practices do not contravene fundamental human rights. The repugnancy doctrine essentially mandates that any customary law that is contrary to natural justice, equity, and good conscience is deemed invalid². This principle raises pertinent questions about the extent to which the judiciary has the authority to alter or nullify customary practices that have long been upheld by communities.
The impact of judicial interpretation extends beyond mere legality; it influences social norms, community relations, and the overall perception of customary laws among the populace³. While the intent of the repugnancy doctrine is to uphold human rights and promote justice, its application can inadvertently marginalize traditional practices that hold significant cultural value¹.
Thus, it becomes imperative to explore the ramifications of this doctrine on customary laws and practices in Nigeria, particularly in light of ongoing debates about cultural preservation and the role of modern legal frameworks⁴.
…
