CONSTITUTIONAL MODELS OF TREATY RECEPTION AND TRADE GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NIGERIA, KENYA, AND SOUTH AFRICA

Abstract

This article delivers a critical legal analysis of the legal conflict between market liberalization and sovereign human rights protections within sub-Saharan Africa. Operating under a strict dualist framework dictated by Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution, Nigeria suffers from an enforcement gap where un-enacted human rights, labour, and environmental treaties remain non-justiciable within municipal courts. This separation leaves local populations exposed to trade-driven disruptions without direct avenues for domestic judicial redress. To examine how Nigeria can bridge this gap, this study provides an extensive comparative evaluation of alternative legal models deployed by its continental peers: namely, Kenya’s progressive monist incorporation model under its 2010 Constitution and South Africa’s sophisticated interpretive hybrid framework under its 1996 Constitution. By examining landmark appellate jurisprudence alongside regional developments under the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), this article explores how divergent constitutional designs alter corporate liability, resource governance, and public health outcomes. It ultimately offers concrete legislative, constitutional, and policy-driven recommendations to move Nigeria away from reactive realignments, providing a structural blueprint to ensure macroeconomic growth remains firmly tethered to the rule of law and human dignity.