https://www.facebook.com/998585680014364/

Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah, Port Harcourt (2026)

24/09/2026

Imagine being told that in a few days, the State will take your life. This is not because you are at war, not because you are attacking anyone, but because a court has sentenced you to death for a crime you committed years ago.

This is not merely a hypothetical question.

Christa Pike is scheduled to be executed in Tennessee on September 30, 2026. She was 18 when she was convicted of the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer. If the ex*****on proceeds, Pike would become the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years.

And this brings us to a much bigger legal question:

If the right to life is a universal human right, how can the death penalty be justified? Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

The same Declaration also provides in Article 5 that: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

So, is the death penalty incompatible with the right to life?

The answer under international law is not quite that simple. This is because the UDHR itself does not expressly prohibit capital punishment.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes the inherent right to life, but also provides that in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed for the “most serious crimes,” subject to strict legal safeguards.

At the same time, the international human-rights system has developed a strong movement towards abolition. The UN's Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR specifically aims at the abolition of the death penalty.

So we are confronted with a difficult tension:

📌The right to life is universal.
📌 The State has a duty to protect innocent people from murder and other serious crimes.
📌Some legal systems still permit capital punishment.
📌 Other legal systems have abolished it completely.
📌International human-rights law increasingly emphasizes abolition and strict limitations on its use.

And then comes the question that is perhaps even more difficult: ❓

If someone deliberately takes another person's life, does that person lose their own right to life❓
Or does the right to life remain a human right—even for someone who has committed the most serious crime❓

There is also another dimension.

Can punishment ever cross the line from legitimate punishment into cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment❓

These are not merely philosophical questions. They are questions about law, human dignity, justice, punishment and the power of the State over human life.

Christa Pike's case therefore gives us an opportunity to examine one of the most controversial questions in criminal justice:

SHOULD THE STATE HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE A HUMAN LIFE AS PUNISHMENT?

What do you think?

Is the death penalty a legitimate form of punishment for the most serious crimes, or is it incompatible with the universal right to life?

This post discusses the legal and human-rights dimensions of the death penalty. It does not address the merits of Christa Pike's conviction.

Follow me Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

24/09/2026

Divorce is more than simply saying:

“I don't want this marriage because I don't love him anymore”. So, before taking that step, there are important legal, financial and personal issues to consider.

📌WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DIVORCE?
Divorce laws differ from one country to another.
Depending on where you live, the law may require you to establish particular grounds or satisfy specific legal requirements before a marriage can be dissolved.

📌HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE CHILDREN?
If you have children, divorce may raise questions about:
• Where they will live
• Who will have custody
• Parenting and visitation arrangements
• Child support
• Their education and welfare
The best interests of the children are an important consideration in many legal systems.

📌WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROPERTY?
A divorce may require decisions about the family home, land, businesses, investments, bank accounts, vehicles and other assets.

Do not assume that simply because an asset is in your name, the other spouse has no possible legal interest in it — or vice versa.

📌WHAT ABOUT DEBTS?
Mortgages, loans, credit cards, business debts and other financial obligations may also need to be addressed.

Divorce does not automatically make debts disappear.

📌WILL ONE SPOUSE NEED FINANCIAL SUPPORT?
Depending on the law applicable to your marriage, one spouse may be entitled to financial support or maintenance from the other.

The amount and duration can depend on factors such as income, length of marriage, needs and the applicable law.

📌HAVE YOU CONSIDERED YOUR WILL AND ESTATE PLAN?
Divorce can affect your estate planning. Your will, beneficiaries, life insurance, pensions, trusts and other arrangements may need to be reviewed and updated where the law permits.

📌WHAT ABOUT YOUR NAME AND IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS?
You may need to consider whether you want to retain or change your surname and whether important documents and accounts need to be updated after the divorce.

📌HAVE YOU TAKEN PROPER LEGAL ADVICE?
Do not rely solely on what a friend, relative or social media post tells you. Divorce laws are different in different countries and sometimes even between different regions of the same country.

Before taking action, speak with a qualified family lawyer in your jurisdiction.

THE BIG LESSON: Don't make the decision to divorce without understanding the legal and financial consequences.

Divorce may end a marriage, but it can create important legal responsibilities that continue long after the marriage ends.

Know your rights. Know your obligations. And understand your options before you take that step.

This post is for general legal information only and should not be taken as a substitute for legal advice as divorce laws and procedures vary considerably between jurisdictions.

Follow me Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

23/09/2026

📣 A BIG SHOUT-OUT TO ALL MY AMAZING FOLLOWERS! ❤️🎉

I’m so excited to have you all onboard! Thank you for being part of this growing community. 🙏🏽

Here at Learn Law with Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah, we are making the law simple, practical and easy to understand.

💬 Comment on my posts.
❤️ Like them and
🔄 Share them with others.

Your comments, likes and shares encourage me to keep bringing you more lectures, practical legal issues and topics that affect our everyday lives.

Together, let’s learn the law! ⚖️📚

Follow me at Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

23/09/2026

PART 3: CAN BAIL BE REFUSED EVEN WHEN THE OFFENCE IS “BAILABLE”?

The answer is yes and this depends on the circumstances. Many misunderstand the expression: "Bailable offence.” It does NOT necessarily mean: “Walk into court and you must be released immediately.”

WHAT DOES THE LAW PROVIDE?

Under Section 158 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), a person who is arrested, detained or brought before a court is, subject to the provisions of Part 19 of the Act, entitled to bail.

But that entitlement is subject to the circumstances and statutory provisions governing bail.

For offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years, Section 162 ACJA provides for release on bail unless specified circumstances exist.

SOME OF WHAT THE COURT CAN CONSIDER WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT BAIL

The court may consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that, if released, the defendant may:

1. Commit another offence;
2. Evade trial;
3. Interfere with or intimidate witnesses;
4. Conceal or destroy evidence;
5. Prejudice the proper investigation of the case; or
6. Otherwise undermine the proper administration of criminal justice.

📌 IN SIMPLE TERMS:

The issue is not only whether the offence is bailable but the court may also have to consider if there are circumstances that make release on bail inappropriate in the particular case.

Imagine, for example, that Chinedu in our scenario is accused of an offence involving several witnesses and the prosecution presents credible grounds suggesting that, if released, he may interfere with those witnesses.That circumstance may become relevant to the court's decision on bail.

Similarly, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that Chinedu may abscond or interfere with the investigation, the court may take that into account.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT BAIL IS NOT PUNISHMENT.

An accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

A person should not be treated as though he has already been convicted simply because he has been accused of a crime.

The purpose of bail is primarily connected with securing the person's attendance at trial and protecting the proper administration of justice while the case is pending.

BAIL CONDITIONS

The court can impose conditions while granting bail

Under Section 165 ACJA, the conditions of bail are within the discretion of the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and must not be excessive.

So, bail does not simply mean: “Pay money and go home" because the court may require a recognizance, surety, security or other appropriate conditions permitted by law.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT FROM THIS 3-PART SERIES?

PART 1:
A person being arrested does NOT automatically mean the person must remain in custody until trial.

PART 2:
Bail may be granted by the police in appropriate circumstances, while the court also has powers to grant bail. A surety may be required depending on the applicable conditions.

PART 3:

An offence being described as “bailable” does NOT necessarily mean automatic release. The circumstances of the case and the applicable law matter.

And perhaps the most important lesson:

📌 THE GRANT OF BAIL IS NOT A DECLARATION OF INNOCENCE AND REFUSAL OF BAIL IS NOT A DECLARATION OF GUILT.

The case still has to be determined according to law.

Tell me what surprised you most in the comments. 👇
And if you are outside Nigeria, tell me your country and let us know how bail works there.

Legal disclaimer: This post is for general legal education and does not constitute legal advice. Bail rules vary by jurisdiction and depend on the offence and circumstances of each case.

Follow me at Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

22/09/2026

PART 2: BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE COURT, WHO CAN GRANT BAIL?

Let’s go back to our scenario in Part 1 using Chinedu and his brother.

The police has told him that the offence is bailable and Chinedu asks:
“Great! So when can we take him home?”
But the police officer replies:
“You need a surety.”🤔

SO, WHAT IS A SURETY?

A surety is a person who gives an undertaking to ensure that the person released on bail complies with the conditions of bail, particularly the obligation to appear when required.

In simple terms, the surety is saying:

“I am prepared to stand behind this person's bail and accept the legal consequences if the conditions of the recognizance are breached.”

BUT CAN THE POLICE GRANT BAIL?

The answer is yes, in appropriate circumstances.

Under Section 30 of Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), where a suspect is arrested without a warrant for an offence other than one punishable with death, the officer in charge of a police station is required to inquire into the case and, subject to the statutory conditions, release the suspect on bail where it is not practicable to bring the suspect before a court within 24 hours.

The release may be with or without sureties.

So, police bail is a real thing.

But police bail is not the same thing as bail granted by a court.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MATTER GETS TO COURT?

Section 158 of the ACJA provides a general entitlement to bail, subject to the provisions of Part 19 of the Act.

However, the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case can affect whether bail is granted and the conditions attached to it.

And this brings us to an important point:

BAIL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN “PAY MONEY AND GO HOME.”

Under Section 165 of the ACJA, conditions of bail are at the discretion of the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and those conditions must not be excessive.

The court may also require money or other security from the defendant or a surety before bail is approved.

SO, DOES THE ACCUSED PERSON ALWAYS HAVE TO PAY THE BAIL MONEY?

Not necessarily.

A court may impose a recognizance, require a surety, require security, or impose other conditions depending on the circumstances and applicable law.

The important thing is that the exact conditions of bail matter.

AND HERE IS SOMETHING MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW:

A person can be granted bail but still remain in custody temporarily until the conditions for release have been satisfied.

For example, if the court says:

“Bail is granted in the sum of ₦5 million with one surety…”

that does not necessarily mean the person walks out of the courtroom immediately.

The required recognizance or security may still have to be completed before release.

Under Section 171 of the ACJA, once the recognizance has been properly entered into or the required money/security deposited, the defendant is to be released, subject to the statutory provisions.

BUT WHAT IF THE SURETY LATER BECOMES UNSUITABLE?

That is another interesting part of bail law.

The ACJA contains provisions dealing with the suitability of sureties and variation of recognizances.

So, becoming a surety is not simply a matter of saying:

“Don't worry, I know him.” it carries legal responsibilities.

👇 NOW TELL ME:

If the police say an offence is bailable, should they be able to release the suspect immediately?

Or should the suspect always be taken before a court?

And in your country:

Who grants police bail?

What qualifications must a surety have?

Can bail be refused even where the offence is described as “bailable”?

Tell me your country in the comments.

📌 PART 3:
Can bail be refused even when the offence is bailable? And what factors does a court consider before granting or refusing bail?

Legal disclaimer: This post is for general legal education and does not constitute legal advice. Bail rules vary by jurisdiction and depend on the offence and circumstances of each case.

Follow Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

22/09/2026

PART 1: ARRESTED — DOES THAT MEAN YOU MUST STAY IN JAIL?

Let's imagine this scenario:

It is 10 p.m.

Chinedu’s family receives a phone call:

“Chinedu has been arrested. He is at the police station.”

His brother immediately rushes there.

After finding out the allegation, he asks:

“Officer, is the offence bailable?”

“Yes.”

“Then can we take him home?” and the officer replies 'not so fast' 🤔

This takes us to the discussion on BAIL.

SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES BAIL MEAN?

Bail generally refers to the release of a person who has been arrested or accused of a criminal offence while the criminal proceedings continue.

But bail does NOT mean the person has been found innocent.

It also does not necessarily mean the person must be released without conditions.

Depending on the country and the circumstances of the case, bail may come with conditions such as providing a surety, surrendering a passport, reporting to the authorities, or appearing in court when required.

BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART:

Bail laws are NOT the same everywhere.

For example, under Nigerian law, Section 158 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) provides a general entitlement to bail, subject to the provisions of Part 19 of the Act. The Act then makes different provisions depending on the seriousness and circumstances of the alleged offence.

In England and Wales, Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 provides a general right to bail for persons accused of offences, subject to statutory exceptions. The framework was amended in 2026 by the Sentencing Act 2026.

So when someone says:

“He has been arrested, therefore he must remain in custody until the case is over.”

That statement is not necessarily correct.

The law of the particular country, the offence involved, and the circumstances of the case matter.

WHAT ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY?

❓Does your country have a right to bail

❓Can the police grant bail

❓When must a court consider bail

❓And can bail be refused

That is where it gets interesting.

👇 Tell me your country in the comments, and let's see how the law treats bail there.

📌 PART 2:
Who can grant bail — the Police or the Court? And what does it mean when they ask for a “surety”?

Legal disclaimer: This post is for general legal education and does not constitute legal advice. Bail rules vary by jurisdiction and depend on the offence and circumstances of each case.

Follow Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

20/09/2026

YOU MAY BE A SUSPECT. BUT YOU DO NOT LOSE YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS.

You may have hear of read about the death of 37 suspected illegal miners while in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State.

A very important legal question is raised by this incident and that is:

WHAT RIGHTS DOES SOMEONE WHO IS ARRESTED AND DETAINED HAVE?

It is important to note that detention of someone does not make the person guilty. This is because someone who is suspected of committing an offence remains a suspect, not a convicted criminal.

The following are the rights which a detained person is guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended):

📌Right to life. (Section 33)
📌Right to dignity of the human person. (Section 34). This section prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
📌Right to personal liberty (Section 35). It also provides safeguards for persons who are arrested or detained.
📌Section 36 guarantees fair hearing, including the principle that a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

So, even where a person is suspected of illegal mining or any other offence, the law does not permit the State to treat that person as though they have already been convicted.

DETENTION IS NOT A SENTENCE.

And custody comes with responsibility.

When the State takes a person into custody, questions arise about the conditions in which that person is detained, the medical care provided, the treatment received, and whether reasonable steps were taken to preserve the person's life and dignity.

The investigation into the deaths of these 37 detainees must therefore answer some important questions:

How were they arrested?

Where and how were they detained?

How many people were held in the facility?

What were the conditions of detention?

Were complaints about the conditions made?

Was medical assistance available?

What actually caused the deaths?

And most importantly:

WHO, IF ANYONE, BEARS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENED?

We should allow the investigation and forensic evidence to establish the facts before reaching conclusions.

But one legal principle should never be forgotten:

A suspect is still a human being.

What do you think the law requires of the State when a person is held in its custody?

Follow .e at Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

17/09/2026

Let's imagine this scenario:

Two friends Dele and Emeka agree to steal a car and they make plans, discuss how the robbery will be carried out and agree on their respective roles. But before they can execute the plan, the police arrest them.

Have they committed an offence?

Yes. They may be guilty of CONSPIRACY even though the robbery itself was never carried out.

What then is CONSPIRACY?

It is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, or to achieve a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

Under the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, conspiracy is specifically recognised as an offence.

What does the law say?

Under section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, a person who conspires with another to commit a felony is guilty of a felony.

Where the conspiracy is to commit an offence that is not a felony, section 517 applies and makes the conspiracy a misdemeanour.

The Supreme Court has also explained that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons. It may often be proved by inference from the facts and circumstances of the case rather than by direct evidence of the agreement.

Important points to note 👉

1) The actual offence and the conspiracy to commit the offence are not necessarily the same thing.

For example:

Adamu and Bassey agree to kidnap Amachree.

Even if they are caught before the kidnapping takes place, the agreement itself may constitute the offence of conspiracy.

2) Conspiracy focuses on the criminal agreement, while the substantive offence focuses on the actual criminal act.

Remember:

3) to prove the offence of Conspiracy, there must be at least two persons involved in the agreement. One person cannot conspire alone.

Question for you:
If Peter and Paul agree to commit a crime, but Peter later changes his mind and walks away before the crime is committed, does that automatically mean Peter is no longer liable for conspiracy?

What do you think?

Legal Disclaimer: This post is for general legal education and information only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified legal practitioner on the facts of a particular case.

Follow me at Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

17/09/2026

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN BE HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN OFFENCE WITHOUT PHYSICALLY DOING THE ACT THAT RESULTED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE?

This brings us to a very important topic in criminal law of who can be included as a party to an offence.
When a crime is committed, many people assume that only the person who physically commits the act can be held criminally responsible.

That is not always the case.

Under the Nigerian Criminal Code, different persons can be regarded as having taken part in the commission of an offence.

1) THE PRINCIPAL OFFENDER

Section 7 of the Criminal Code identifies persons who are deemed to have taken part in committing an offence and may be charged with actually committing it.

This includes:
a. The person who actually does the act or makes the omission constituting the offence.
b. A person who does or omits to do something for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence.
c. A person who aids another person in committing the offence.
d. A person who counsels or procures another person to commit the offence.

So, under section 7, a person does not necessarily have to be the one who physically performs the criminal act before the law can regard that person as having taken part in the offence.

2) COMMON PURPOSE

Section 8 of the Criminal Code goes further.

Where two or more persons form a common intention to pursue an unlawful purpose together, and an offence is committed which was a probable consequence of pursuing that unlawful purpose, each person may be deemed to have committed the offence.

For example:

A and B agree to carry out an armed robbery. During the ex*****on of their common unlawful purpose, one of them kills the victim.

The question is not simply:

“Who actually fired the shot?”

The court may have to consider whether the killing was a probable consequence of pursuing their common unlawful purpose.

3) COUNSELLING ANOTHER TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE

Section 9 provides that where a person counsels another to commit an offence and an offence is subsequently committed, it may be immaterial that the offence was committed in a different manner from the manner counselled, provided the offence actually committed was a probable consequence of carrying out the counsel.

4) ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

This is different.

Under section 10, a person becomes an accessory after the fact where the person receives or assists someone who, to the person's knowledge, is guilty of an offence, in order to enable that person to escape punishment.

The Criminal Code also provides specific punishments for accessories after the fact to felonies, misdemeanours and simple offences in sections 519–521.

THE IMPORTANT LESSON

You may not have personally committed the physical act and yet the law may still hold you criminally responsible, depending on your participation and the applicable provision of law.

But remember:

Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not automatically make a person a party to the offence.

The prosecution must establish the legal basis for the person's criminal responsibility.

So, the next time someone says:

“I didn't commit the crime. I only helped him.”

The important question is:

What exactly did you do?

That may make all the difference in criminal law.

Disclaimer: This post is for general legal education and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the law depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Follow Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights.

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

16/09/2026

Part 4: WHAT IF THE ACT WAS NOT COMMITTED WITH THE REQUIRED STATE OF MIND?

In the commission of an offence, if the law creating the offence stipulates that both the act and guilty mind must coincide (be present) at the time the offence was committed, then both elements should not be looked at separately. This then brings us to the concept of concurrence in the elements of an offence.

CONCURRENCE: it means that the required guilty act and guilty mind must come together in the manner required for the particular offence.

For example, imagine that A accidentally takes B's property, genuinely believing it belongs to A.

Later, A discovers the mistake and decides to keep the property.

The mere fact that A eventually develops a dishonest intention does not automatically mean that A had the required mens rea at the time of the original taking.

The precise offence and applicable law must always be considered.

CAUSATION

Causation becomes particularly important where the offence requires a particular result.

For example, in a homicide case, it is not enough to establish that:

👉 the accused performed an act; and
👉 a person subsequently died.

The prosecution may also have to establish that it was the accused's conduct that legally caused the death, subject to the applicable rules of causation.

So, we can have:

ACTUS REUS + MENS REA + THE OTHER REQUIRED INGREDIENTS

Kindly note that it is not every offence that requires proof of causation or a particular result.

The ingredients depend on the offence charged.

And now we come to the question that ties everything together:

WHO HAS TO PROVE ALL THESE ELEMENTS—and HOW STRONG MUST THE EVIDENCE BE?

That takes us to the final part which is part 5

Follow Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah for more legal insights and discussions on your rights

Remember: Knowledge is power, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stay informed and know what the law says.

Dr. Maureen Eneh Ujah

Learn Law WDr Maureen Eneh Ujah

24/09/2026

24/09/2026

23/09/2026

23/09/2026

22/09/2026

22/09/2026

20/09/2026

17/09/2026

17/09/2026

16/09/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request