Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Nigeria's Legal Regulatory Framework for Ensuring a Credible 2023 Election Nabiebu, Miebaka
International Journal of Law and Society Vol 1 No 3 (2022): International Journal of Law and Society (IJLS)
Publisher : NAJAHA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59683/ijls.v1i3.32

Since independence, the Nigerian electoral process has been plagued with spiralling anomalies, including worsening violence, intimidation, death and fraud. This has jeopardized Nigeria's socio-economic, political and national security and eroded confidence in the democratic process as well as increased election season security concerns. For elections to be credible, the competition must be fair, which requires impartial process management. So, despite the recently revised Electoral Act and other related laws that could help Nigeria realize its potential for credible elections. This work argues that the legal framework still has several components that must be studied or introduced to improve electoral processes. The method used is qualitative with a case study approach and empirical juridical. The results of this study propose that Article 225 of the Constitution be amended to eliminate the requirement for cash given to political parties from outside Nigeria to be transferred to INEC; otherwise, the donation must be notified to INEC and made public. The constitution should be modified to establish an Election Offenses Commission or Court to try and punish individuals (INEC officers, candidates and voters) who violate articles 114–128 of the new law. Section 29(5) of the Elections Act should be amended to allow the Federal Capital Territory and the High Court of Abuja State to hear and resolve pre-election disputes. In addition, instead of focusing on technical matters, the trial for the regional election application should focus more on the substance of the application and the facts of the case.

Comparative Study of Islamic and International Humanitarian Law Nabiebu, Miebaka
International Journal of Law and Society Vol 2 No 3 (2023): International Journal of Law and Society (IJLS)
Publisher : NAJAHA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59683/ijls.v2i3.64

The human community has always been characterized by conflict, governed by ethical and legal standards that have evolved with human civilization. This widely accepted standard was eventually defined as contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This study aims to analyze from two legal perspectives: Islamic and international humanitarian law. The method used in this research is comparative, including qualitative analysis. The results of this study suggest that regulation has developed mainly due to modern European activities, diminishing the potential contributions of other cultural and ethical traditions to its development and codification. However, it should be noted that the principles jus ad bellum (laws governing the use of force) and jus in Bello (the content of the laws of war) are evident in Islamic literature centuries before modern international law was codified, with little attention paid to them. This paper argues that Islamic humanitarian law, which regulates the treatment of prisoners of war, is comprehensive and comparable to the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention. In addition, the concept of Siyar's Islamic literature is very similar to the Geneva Conventions. This research augments international relations by examining the degree of concordance between the requirements of Islamic Humanitarian Law and Modern IHL concerning issues of immediate practical relevance in an era when several regions of the world are experiencing armed conflict.

Assessing Direct Digital Services Taxes in Africa: Compliance with the Canons of Taxation Nabiebu, Miebaka; Ekpo, Mokutima Etido; Anukanti, Vivien Chioma; Agube, Ntamy
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 13, No 1 (2025)
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

The rapid expansion of the digital economy has introduced complexities in tax revenue mobilization, particularly in the taxation of digital transactions, both domestic and international. The intangible nature of digital services has facilitated tax evasion and avoidance, prompting governments worldwide to formulate policies aimed at capturing revenue from this sector. African countries are no exception, having introduced various digital tax policies, including both direct and indirect taxes. This paper focuses on Direct Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), which have sparked considerable debate among governments, policymakers, academics, tax bodies, and development organizations. Discussions primarily revolve around their structural design, compliance with the canons of taxation, potential benefits and challenges, and their broader economic implications. Through a literature review, this study examines the legislative frameworks and administrative approaches to DSTs in Africa, assessing their alignment with fundamental taxation principles. The findings reveal mixed outcomes. While some aspects of DSTs align with taxation principles such as fairness and efficiency, others conflict with them. These inconsistencies can be attributed to differences in economic structures, political environments, and administrative capacities across African nations, as well as disparities between developing and developed economies. The study concludes that while DSTs are crucial for harnessing revenue from the digital economy, their design and implementation must carefully balance equity, neutrality, efficiency, and economic viability to ensure optimal tax policy outcomes.

The Impact of Populism on International Law: A Case Study of Nigeria's Role in Regional and Global Governance Nabiebu, Miebaka; Ekpo, Mokutima Etido; Agube, Ntamy
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 12, No 2 (2024)
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

The rise of populism represents a profound challenge to constitutionalism, democracy, and the rule of law, both within nations and across the global stage. Populist governments increasingly undermine the foundations of international law, multilateralism, and the legitimacy of international legal agreements. This article explores the dangers posed by populism to the international legal order, focusing on its impact on international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the broader framework of global cooperation. Populist regimes often frame international law as a tool for coordination and intervention, eroding its role in safeguarding human rights and fostering collective agreements among nations. By examining these dynamics, this article highlights the growing threat of populism to the international community and proposes strategies to mitigate its effects.

A Comparative Study Of Islamic And International Humanitarian Law Nabiebu, Miebaka
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 2, No 2 (2023): September
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v2i2.51301

Human communities have always been marked by conflicts, which came to be controlled by ethical and legal standards that developed along with human civilization. These widely accepted standards were eventually established as contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Additionally, it is commonly believed that this legislation has developed largely as a result of modern European activities, diminishing any potential contributions from other cultures and ethical traditions to its development and codification. However, it is noteworthy that the principles of jus ad bellum (law governing the use of force) and jus in Bello (content of the law of war) were evident in Islamic literature centuries before modern IHL was codified, with little attention paid to them. Jihad, or Islamic conflict, has been the subject of some existing literature, but the notion of Islamic humanitarian law within the context of IHL has not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, this study aims to fill a gap in the existing literature by reviewing Islamic humanitarian law within the ambit of IHL. This essay argues that Islamic humanitarian law, which regulates the treatment of prisoners of war, is extensive and comparable to the 1949 Geneva Convention's provisions. Additionally, the concepts of Siyar Islamic literature are strikingly similar to those of the Geneva Convention. This research adds to international relations by examining the degree of conformity between the requirements of Islamic Humanitarian Law and Modern IHL with regard to a matter of immediate practical relevance in an era when some regions of the world are suffering armed conflict

The Legal Effect of Appointment and Possession of a Receiver Over the Property of a Company Otu, Michael Takim; Nabiebu, Miebaka
Tamaddun Life Vol 21 No 2 (2022): December 2022
Publisher : Fakultas Sastra - Universitas Muslim Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33096/tamaddun.v21i2.213

A receiver in an action is an impartial person appointed by the court to collect and receive, pending the proceedings, the rents, issues, and profits of land or personal estate that it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party should collect or receive, or to enable the same to be distributed among the persons entitled. The appointment of a receiver does not in any way affect the right to the property over which he is appointed. The court takes possession of its receiver, and his possession is that of all parties to the action according to their titles. The receiver does not collect the rents and profits by virtue of any estate vested in him but by virtue of his position as an officer of the court appointed to collect property upon the title of the parties to the action. In the case of a fixed or floating charge, receivers and managers are appointed either by the court or by the debenture holders. In this article, we shall examine the legal effects of the appointment of a receiver by the court and out-of-court systems over the property of a company. This research is carried out using textual and contextual analysis.

The Trump Doctrine of Preemptive Extraterritorial Force: Targeted Killing Promises Against Nigerian Jihadists and the Crisis of International Legal Order Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Agube, Ntamy
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 13, No 2 (2025): Juli – December 2025
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

The January 2026 public declaration by the U.S. President Donald Trump vowing to order lethal strikes against Islamic State-affiliated jihadist factions in Nigeria represents a critical inflection point in the normative architecture governing the use of force. This paper conducts an extensive doctrinal and policy analysis of such a declaration, situating it within the broader “Trump Doctrine” of unilateral, preemptive military action that challenges the United Nations Charter’s foundational framework. The paper posits that promises of extraterritorial force against non-state actors (NSAs) in the territory of a consenting but weak sovereign state like Nigeria create a complex tripartite legal nexus involving: the jus ad bellum limits of self-defense against NSAs (the “unwilling or unable” test), the jus in bello principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in a counterterrorism context, and the emerging jus ad vim debate on the law of armed conflict short of war. Through a case study of Nigeria’s counterinsurgency against ISWAP and Boko Haram, analyzing the state’s capacity, territorial control, and ambiguous consent” the paper interrogates whether such U.S. action would constitute lawful collective self-defense, a violation of sovereignty, or an unlawful intervention. It further examines the dangerous precedent set by public, politically instrumental declarations of force, which risk eroding diplomatic channels, undermining host-state legitimacy, and legitimizing a global practice of “adversarial airstrike diplomacy.” The paper concludes that while the 2001 AUMF provides a contested domestic U.S. legal basis, the international legal permissibility hinges on a fact-specific assessment of Nigeria’s effective control and explicit consent, a threshold currently unmet in large parts of the Lake Chad Basin. Ultimately, the declaration epitomizes a trend toward the normalization of unilateral counterterrorism strikes, posing a systemic threat to the Article 2(4) prohibition and accelerating the fragmentation of international law into a hierarchy where powerful states dictate the rules of cross-border violence.

The Illicit Commodification of Deportation: The Trump Administration’s “Third-Country Prisoner Transfer” Policy as a Violation of Jus Cogens Norms and the Law of State Responsibility Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Ipuole, Roland; Njong, Cleverty Afu
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 2 (2025): September
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i2.51008

This paper examines the Trump administration’s initiative to deport non-citizen prisoners to third countries through bilateral agreements as a fundamental challenge to international legal order. We argue this policy of “strategic exile” constituted an internationally wrongful act that engaged United States state responsibility by violating peremptory norms (jus cogens) and established principles of international law. The analysis demonstrates how the policy violated the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality and the right to a nationality, breached the absolute principle of non-refoulement, and contravened customary rules governing lawful expulsion. By seeking to transfer individuals to states with which they lacked genuine legal bonds, the United States attempted to create conditions of de facto statelessness while exposing individuals to foreseeable risks of persecution and indefinite detention. The paper further examines how recipient states could bear shared responsibility under the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility for aiding in these violations. This case represents a dangerous precedent for the erosion of fundamental human rights protections through bilateral coercion, demanding a robust international response to affirm that state sovereignty cannot legitimate the unilateral severance of an individual’s legal bond to the international community of states.

The Legal Vacuum of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: From Meaningful Human Control to Algorithmic Accountability in the Age of AI Warfare Nabiebu, Miebaka; Ekpo, Mokutima; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Anukanti, Vivien
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 1 (2025): May
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i1.61759

The rapid and opaque development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) has created a profound crisis in the foundational frameworks of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This paper argues that the current diplomatic discourse within the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, centered on the nebulous concept of “Meaningful Human Control,” is insufficient and strategically stalled. It posits that the advent of sophisticated artificial intelligence driven targeting, as seen in contemporary conflicts, necessitates a fundamental shift in the legal paradigm. The analysis contends that IHL's core principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in attack cannot be authentically complied with by opaque algorithms whose decision making processes are inscrutable and whose parameters may be shaped by biased data sets. The paper examines how the deployment of LAWS fractures the chain of legal accountability, creating a responsibility gap where no human can be held legally responsible for an unlawful algorithmic kill decision. Moving beyond critique, the paper proposes a new regulatory framework based on Algorithmic Accountability. This framework demands legally binding prohibitions on autonomy in critical functions, mandatory human rights impact assessments, transparent algorithmic auditing, and the establishment of an international registry for military artificial intelligence systems. This research aims to break the diplomatic impasse by providing a concrete, legally rigorous pathway to govern the weaponization of artificial intelligence before its integration erodes the very essence of humanitarian law.

Title

Found 9 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 9 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 9 Documents
Search