EXAMINING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE ARMED CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA

Abstract

The persistent armed conflicts and widespread violence across Nigeria, ranging from Boko Haram insurgency, banditry, farmer–herder confrontations, separatist agitations, and security force abuses, have generated patterns of atrocities that increasingly resemble crimes against humanity under international law. Despite the gravity and scale of these violations, accountability mechanisms for both individual perpetrators and complicit corporate actors remain weak, fragmented, or entirely absent. This paper critically examines the legal characterisation of atrocities committed in Nigeria, assessing whether they meet the thresholds of crimes against humanity as defined in customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It analyses key acts such as murder, enforced disappearance, torture, sexual violence, persecution, forced displacement, and attacks on civilian populations, highlighting their commission by state actors, non-state armed groups, and private security contractors operating on behalf of corporate entities. It assesses Nigeria’s domestic legal system, including constitutional provisions, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, military rules of engagement, and criminal statutes, identifying significant gaps in the attribution, investigation, and prosecution of mass atrocity crimes. Particular attention is given to the evolving discourse on corporate complicity, especially the role of extractive industries, security companies, and multinational corporations whose operations intersect with violent conflict zones. Through doctrinal analysis, case studies, and review of international accountability models, the paper argues that Nigeria’s accountability deficit is driven by structural impunity, weak investigative architecture, political interference, and absence of explicit legal provisions criminalising crimes against humanity. It proposes a multi-layered approach involving legislative reform, effective investigative bodies, enhanced corporate due diligence obligations, and potential international intervention where domestic remedies fail