{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010869565217391304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004830917874396135, 'mean_word_length': 5.2330827067669174, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Dubious Distinction between Principal and Accessory Claims in Nigerian Human Rights Jurisprudence

Abstract What began as an exercise in defining the jurisdiction of the Nigerian Federal High Court over fundamental human rights has now turned into a well established principle that Nigerian courts will not entertain an action for the enforcement of a fundamental human right contained in chapter IV of the 1999 constitution through the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules unless it is the principal claim. In other words, if the action for the enforcement of a fundamental human right is an accessory or subsidiary claim, the action must be started by a writ of summons. This article demonstrates that this distinction is dubious, irrelevant and impossible to make, and leads to a miscarriage of justice.