Could you briefly introduce yourself and describe your role within the National Committee for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law [National IHL Committee] in Nigeria?

Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Abimbola Ajileye, and I serve in Nigeria as a deputy director within the International and Comparative Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Justice, where I also support the work of Nigeria’s National IHL Committee. In this capacity, I contribute to the National IHL Committee’s coordination, legal advisory functions, and engagement with national and international stakeholders to advance the ratification and domestication of relevant international humanitarian law [IHL] treaties and ensure effective implementation of IHL obligations in Nigeria.

Could you elaborate on the origin, composition and structure of Nigeria’s National IHL Committee, for example as regulated in a statutory or other act that established it?

The National IHL Committee in Nigeria was established through an executive decision in 2010. More specifically, it was created following executive approval by the Federal Government, coordinated through the Federal Ministry of Justice. In Nigeria, ministers have the authority to issue ministerial decisions and directives in the discharge of their duties. These decisions are binding, much like practice directions issued by a chief judge are binding on courts under their authority. The Committee was established through such a decision. It has effectively been operative since its establishment in 2010, meeting at least four times annually – with the exception of the COVID-19 period, when global restrictions affected physical interactions, leading to a gap of two to three years.

The National IHL Committee is domiciled within the Federal Ministry of Justice, and consequently its running budget is covered by the Ministry. For meetings and training activities, the projected financial costs are submitted to the Ministry, which provides the necessary support. Where external assistance is required, our partner, the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], provides technical and other support and helps ensure that our activities, where aligned with its mandate, are effectively carried out.

Regarding its composition, the Committee is interministerial and multisectoral, comprising around twenty-two members drawn from various relevant ministries, departments and agencies with varying obligations for IHL implementation in Nigeria. These include the Ministries of Defence, Justice, Interior, Finance, and Women Affairs, among other ministries, departments and agencies. Each institution participates in light of its specific mandate; the Ministry of Interior, for example, is represented because of its responsibilities in areas such as immigration, passport administration and refugee matters, including status determination and reintegration. The Ministry of Finance contributes particularly in relation to funding and financial oversight, while the Ministry of Women Affairs brings expertise on issues affecting women and children, especially in situations of armed conflict. For instance, following the domestication of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which led to the enactment of the Child Rights Act at the federal level, the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs has been involved in ensuring the Act’s domestication into state laws at the state level to ensure nationwide implementation. Nigeria is a dualist country with a federal system of government, and this has implications even for treaty implementation, as treaties ratified need to be domesticated to become enforceable in Nigeria as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution (Section 12). Additionally, such federal laws may require adoption by individual Nigerian states to have full effect at that level. The Child Rights Act has now been domesticated by the thirty-six states of the Federation through the efforts of the Ministry of Justice, the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs and other relevant actors.

Notably, the National Bureau of Statistics is also a member of the National IHL Committee because of the critical importance of data for the Committee’s work and the broader domestication of IHL. For example, data on the number of children affected by armed conflict will influence programmatic choices such as those relating to programmes provided for counselling and community reintegration. As such, data enables us to evaluate whether implementation efforts are effective and how to better target affected persons efficiently.

This structure ensures both policy coherence and technical depth. Each member of the Committee participates because of their role in IHL implementation. The Ministry of Justice does not simply issue directives from a central position; many of the implementing responsibilities lie with other ministries and agencies. When the Committee meets, each member speaks to their mandate, outlines their obligations and reports on activities undertaken in line with Nigeria’s obligations under IHL.

National IHL committees are increasingly recognized, including under Workstream 2 of the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to IHL [Global IHL Initiative], as key institutional vehicles for translating political commitment into practice. How would you describe the mandate and strategic positioning of Nigeria’s National IHL Committee within the State architecture?

Although the National IHL Committee was not established by an act of Parliament and therefore does not have statutory status like a ministry, department or agency, its advisory role is nonetheless critical. At present, the Committee operates under the mandate provided by the Honourable Attorney-General and minister of justice. It seeks to influence other members of the Federal Executive Council, including ministers who serve as focal points for specific IHL treaties. For example, the Ministry of Defence is the focal point for certain treaties, and the Committee works with it to ensure progress in the domestication and implementation of such treaties, including the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and Cluster Munitions Convention. The Committee also played a key role in Nigeria’s endorsement of the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, as well as advocating for domestication of various IHL treaties. When a treaty has been signed or ratified but there is a lack of further action, the members of the Committee will take up the issue to advocate for implementation on the ground.

The Committee also promotes the training of IHL desk officers. IHL desk officers are designated by each member of the Committee to represent that ministry, department or agency in the Committee. An IHL desk officer is expected to develop sufficient expertise to brief senior officials and advise them clearly on Nigeria’s IHL obligations and on practical steps for implementation within their institutional mandates.

There is hope that in the future, the Committee may receive more formal legal backing, a dedicated budget and a more structured institutional framework. For now, however, it continues to work within its existing mandate, and this approach has yielded positive outcomes.

Nigeria is party to many IHL treaties. What is the role of the Nigerian National IHL Committee pertaining to treaty ratification and to support for other international instruments?

Although I was not a member of the Committee at the time, I am aware that the Committee played an instrumental role in Nigeria’s ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Committee has also supported the domestication of other instruments, including the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa [Kampala Convention]. While this convention may not be considered a core IHL treaty in the strictest sense, it addresses the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons, an issue which clearly covers the protection of victims of armed conflict.

The recent passage of legislation in Nigeria domesticating the Kampala Convention was achieved with significant support from the Committee. Specifically, members of the Committee include representatives from the National Assembly – which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives – and through this connection, a bill that had not been signed into law during the previous administration was reintroduced. With sustained advocacy from the ICRC, the National IHL Committee and other stakeholders, the bill was eventually passed and forwarded to the president for assent. The enactment of the Kampala Convention legislation was therefore a significant achievement, and it has been one of the Committee’s recent milestones.

The Committee has also convened high-level dialogues to strengthen understanding of Nigeria’s IHL obligations. Last year, it initiated the first High-Level IHL Dialogue, which was well attended by ministers and permanent secretaries. The resolutions and communiqué emerging from that dialogue contributed to renewed momentum for domestication efforts, including the passage of the Kampala Convention legislation.

Other instruments remain under consideration. The second High-Level IHL Dialogue, held on 26 March 2026, considered Nigeria’s obligations under IHL, particularly the protection of civilians, with the aim of advocating for the conclusion of the domestication of at least two major IHL instruments: the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions [AP I and II]. The Ministry of Defence is also leading efforts on the Ottawa Convention, and the Committee continues to support progress in that area.

The Committee is chaired by the solicitor-general of the Federation and permanent secretary of the Federal Ministry of Justice, a highly experienced civil servant with a background in international law, migration, anti-trafficking, trans-border crimes, and related fields. Her expertise in IHL and international criminal law has been a valuable asset. Ultimately, the Committee’s progress has depended significantly on political will and on the support of government officials who understand and champion Nigeria’s IHL commitments. The hope is to report further progress on domestication efforts before the end of the year.

Could you reflect on priority implementation areas that Nigeria’s National IHL Committee has focused on over the years – such as legislative review, policy development, dissemination, or institutional coordination – and why these were considered strategic?

For 2026, as discussed during the annual review meeting held in collaboration with the ICRC and the Economic Community of West African States, and following the communiqués from the first and second High-Level IHL Dialogues, the Committee has identified several priority areas. First, as mentioned, the domestication of AP I and II is a central priority. Second, dissemination of IHL remains a key focus. Third, IHL training, particularly the training of IHL desk officers, is considered essential. At present, there are approximately thirty active IHL desk officers, who have basic IHL understanding and are capable of representing Nigeria in international fora. The Committee aims to strengthen the IHL expertise of this pool whilst building a broad base capable of sustaining the work and gains of the Committee over time, thereby ensuring continuity and institutional memory; to this end, quarterly training sessions for the current IHL desk officers are scheduled. Domestication of relevant treaties is regarded as particularly important because the benefits of international conventions cannot meaningfully reach citizens unless those instruments are incorporated into domestic law. The Committee has therefore planned a drafting workshop immediately following the High-Level IHL Dialogue to advance domestication of AP I and II. The objective is to be in a position, by the time of the next High-Level IHL Dialogue in 2027, to report tangible progress in the domestication of key IHL instruments.

In your experience, what has proven most effective in ensuring that IHL is operationalized across institutions, particularly within the armed forces and other actors?

I believe the most effective strategy is to ensure that armed forces have IHL incorporated into their curriculum. In Nigeria, from my experience, even some civilians have been to the training centre in Kaduna, where they train personnel who are about to embark on peacekeeping operations. Beyond those deploying on such operations, there are also regular trainings for all personnel of the three branches of our armed forces, the Army, Air Force and Navy. They already have IHL in all their training curricula, and they have IHL experts. We have sent some of these experts to represent Nigeria at meetings in Geneva, such as for the Global IHL Initiative, and these experts are also able to impart their knowledge to other, lower-ranking personnel of the armed forces. That integration of IHL is the best way to ensure its operationalization.

Further, the Committee is planning to send a letter to the Junior Military Academy, which caters to boys and girls between the ages of 10 and about 15, or secondary school level. While these junior cadets are, of course, not deployed to conflict areas or for any operational duties, the Committee intends to partner with commanders of the three branches of the Armed Forces of Nigeria to conduct quarterly trainings or workshops for these young students. This is so that they can familiarize themselves with basic knowledge of IHL at this level in addition to their training on human rights, the Constitution and civic duties and obligations. This will be a priority for 2027, as part of our advocacy efforts.

One of the core rationales for national IHL committees is to enhance interministerial coordination. How does Nigeria’s National IHL Committee facilitate cooperation among ministries and other relevant institutions and actors?

For Nigeria, coordination between the ministries, departments and agencies is fantastic. We have a Committee that has very active membership from ministries. We bring together all these stakeholders who, in their mandates, are tasked with coordinating some of the IHL treaties that Nigeria has signed, so that the Ministry of Justice will best be able to ensure effective IHL implementation.

Another important element are the IHL desk officers. Aside from the National IHL Committee regularly informing and reminding the respective principals – that is, the ministers, directors-general and heads of agencies – that their mandate relates to IHL implementation in Nigeria, we have officers designated by these institutions as IHL desk officers. For the military, most IHL desk officers are directors in their legal departments; some have designated officers who are from operations, but for the military they are mostly from the legal departments. In the other ministries, most of the IHL desk officers are those who work on the treaties and operations that the ministries are coordinating. In my own ministry, the Ministry of Justice, my department coordinates on IHL treaties, so we have a focal person from the International and Comparative Law Department. In the Ministry of Women Affairs, we have a member from the Research Department and from the Child Development Department, and a member from the Legal Department will also be joining them. In the Ministry of Defence, we have two officers who are in charge of the Arms Trade Treaty and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. For all the ministries, we make sure that it is the relevant officers – those who know about the IHL treaties in those ministries – who are the IHL desk officers, and that has really helped us.

Finally, the National IHL Committee includes members from academia; these are professors of law, specifically experts in international law from universities around Nigeria. We also have civil society organizations as members – two of them for now – and are open to more membership from that sector.

From your perspective, what are the key factors that enable a national IHL committee to move beyond formal existence and become operationally effective?

One option could be to have a legislation that grants the committee statutory powers. This could be a separate legislation or it could be captured in the constitution of the country.

Does the fact that a committee’s creation is not captured in legislation reduce the impact that it makes?

I do not think so. As I said earlier, while we wait for the government of Nigeria to decide that the National IHL Committee will be granted its own statutory mandate, we work with what is available to us. Not only does the Committee have the support of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice, but all other ministers and heads of relevant ministries, departments and agencies work in synergy on IHL implementation in Nigeria. At the recently concluded 2026 High-Level IHL Dialogue, the vice-president represented the president and reiterated the government’s support for IHL implementation in Nigeria. We had the minister for women affairs, minister for humanitarian affairs and other actors as chairpersons and panellists at the Dialogue. So the synergy is quite good, and it works, for now. It would be lovely to have a budget line and to be able to plan and execute all our activities for a period of two or four years at a time. For now, we rely on and appreciate the Ministry of Justice taking on the additional budget of the National IHL Committee.

What institutional arrangements or working methods have helped sustain the continuity and relevance of Nigeria’s National IHL Committee over time? Based on that experience, are there any innovations you would consider essential to strengthening the effectiveness of national IHL committees in the next decade?

The sustainability of Nigeria’s Committee largely depends on the personal commitment of the Secretariat, the focal person and the IHL desk officers. So, while officers in the Ministry of Justice frequently rotate between positions, we have ensured that the chair of the Committee will always be the solicitor-general of the Federation and permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice, that the Committee’s head of Secretariat will always be the director of the International and Comparative Law Department in the Federal Ministry of Justice, and that the IHL focal person will be an officer in the International and Comparative Law Department. This institutional structure will ensure proper handover procedures; when a new person takes over, they are briefed, and a proper handover process is completed. If we maintain these handover procedures, we believe that will sustain the Committee in the absence of statutory documentation.

For the Secretariat, we are hoping to have a designated library for IHL. This is because the Committee aims to reach more people, not just in areas where we have armed conflicts right now. We believe that everyone should know what IHL is about and how it relates to their daily lives, whether in peacetime or in time of armed conflict.

What, if any, have been the most significant challenges encountered by Nigeria’s National IHL Committee in fulfilling its mandate? Looking back, were there approaches or assumptions that required adjustment, and if so, what lessons did those moments generate for strengthening the Committee’s effectiveness?

For Nigeria, our main challenge is to ensure that we continue to have committed individuals who are in charge of the Committee – those who are elected, nominated and appointed as ministers. When you appoint a minister or someone who is not particularly interested in intellectual discourse, let alone IHL discourse, getting that person on board to prioritize the activities of the Committee may be a problem. We have been very lucky to have a solicitor-general as chair who has expertise in international law, including IHL.

Succession has always been a source of concern. In the absence of a statutory instrument establishing the National IHL Committee, its effectiveness is largely dictated by the Federal Ministry of Justice, which is the line ministry for IHL issues in Nigeria. The president appoints the ministers, and since the Committee has no powers in this regard, it is guided by the will of the appointed minister. What is clear is that with a minister and chairperson of the Committee who are dedicated and committed to IHL, support for IHL implementation is evident and assured.

I think those are the main challenges that we have. We do not have a budget challenge – as I said, every time we have an activity, if we present our budgets, the Ministry of Justice will be there for us. We also have partners who join us. The ICRC provides support when it can, and we really appreciate this.

The ICRC plays a long-standing advisory role in supporting national IHL committees globally. How would you characterize the relationship between Nigeria’s National IHL Committee and the ICRC? Has collaboration with the ICRC contributed, for example, to capacity-building, technical expertise or sustained momentum for IHL implementation at the national level?

Nigeria appreciates the support and partnership of the ICRC tremendously – it is one of our key support systems. The ICRC has brought expertise to help us organize activities that would have more impact in Nigeria, not just in our ministries, departments and agencies, but at the national level. This also involves engagement with academia, as we have discovered through engagement with the ICRC that many students are pursuing career goals in the field of IHL. Some members of the Committee have suggested that we should have other partners, but it is not enough to just bring in more partners. It’s not about the quantity of partners, but the quality and their relevance to the mandate of the Committee. It’s not about finding a partner that can bring in significant funding for activities, but rather whether their activities align with effective IHL implementation. The ICRC has been there for us and our mandate aligns with its mandate, which makes the partnership very good for the Committee and for Nigeria.

What practical guidance would you offer to States seeking to establish or revitalize their national IHL committees, especially in line with the objectives of Workstream 2 of the Global IHL Initiative?

My first piece of advice is to bring in committed officers and organizations whose mandate aligns and who are genuinely committed to promoting IHL implementation. It is essential to talk with the officers you want to bring together and assess their commitment, because commitment is key. In that regard, it is about more than being a lawyer; we have members who are not lawyers but who are nevertheless committed to IHL implementation.

Second, and critically important, is to ensure that your IHL committee is situated in the ministry, department or agency that has the mandate and political power to undertake IHL implementation. If the committee is situated in an institution that does not see IHL implementation as a priority, it will exist only on paper. Political will is crucial to situate the committee properly.

Third, start small. A committee does not need a large building or thirty members; rather, a few committed individuals who can count on political support from the government can achieve significant results.

Finally, when there are opportunities for committee members to represent the country at international engagements, the representation should be spread across the membership, provided those individuals are qualified. If there are five or six activities in a year – meetings, workshops, seminars – ensure that the representation is distributed rather than having one focal person attending all engagements. With adequate training, all committee members should be able to represent the country at such fora. Nigeria is ready to support other countries in this endeavour.

Considering the characteristics of contemporary armed conflicts, how, in your view, should national IHL committees adapt to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness?

In Nigeria, the role of the National IHL Committee is advisory. We have members in our Committee who are in the military and members from the presidency, but as a whole, the Committee remains under the Attorney-General and functions in an advisory capacity. We give our advice to government based on the facts available to us and grounded in the government’s commitments to IHL treaties. I believe committees should continue to play this advisory role because providing advice and opinions to government helps form policies and can shape or mark government activities. The quality of advice that IHL committees give to government is essential.

What message would you like to convey to policy-makers and practitioners worldwide about the role of national IHL committees as mechanisms for ensuring IHL implementation at the national level?

I know that every IHL committee’s mandate includes an advisory role, and it would be beneficial if governments would listen to the quality advice coming from IHL committees. Governments should support their IHL committees because it is a continuum: political officers and appointees will come and go, but the civil service will continue and will implement their policies. This highlights the importance of supporting these officers, who are tasked with implementing government policies, and of building their capacity to do their work effectively.

It is also important for governments to stand by the commitments they make when it comes to IHL implementation. Signing, ratifying and domesticating treaties is not enough. Translating commitments into action, such as by endeavouring to domesticate treaties that are yet to be domesticated, is encouraging for IHL committees. Governments can show support not just in writing or in speeches, but in the actions they take.

Within the Global IHL Initiative, Nigeria has taken on the important role of serving as co-chair of the Workstream on Protection of Health Care. Nigeria has also been actively participating in several meetings related to other topics. How would you describe the role of Nigeria’s National IHL Committee in relation to the Global IHL Initiative? Beyond the Workstream on Protection of Health Care specifically, would you like to share any thoughts on the Global IHL Initiative as a whole, particularly as it serves as a platform for States to exchange views on both IHL principles and current challenges?

Nigeria’s decision to accept the role of co-chair for the Protection of Health Care Workstream of the Global IHL Initiative was deliberate and strategic. We believe that partnerships are essential, and despite the prevalence of armed conflict around the world, we remain committed to working with organizations that offer practical solutions to IHL violations during armed conflicts.

Since making this decision, we have ensured that the National IHL Committee coordinates all activities related to the Global IHL Initiative. This coordinating role has proven crucial to the effectiveness of Nigeria’s participation. The Attorney-General has approved that the Committee will coordinate both the overall Initiative activities and the specific workstream that Nigeria co-chairs, which has enabled us to leverage the full expertise and networks of our IHL desk officers across government. This institutional arrangement has allowed us to designate appropriate officers from various ministries, departments and agencies to represent Nigeria across different workstreams. For instance, the Nigerian Red Cross Society has representation in the Workstream on National IHL Committees, while the Defence Headquarters has designated an officer for the Workstream on IHL and Peace.

One challenge we have encountered relates to personnel continuity, particularly with military representatives. When an assigned officer is posted away from headquarters in Abuja, the process of formally designating a replacement can be lengthy, and sometimes the new representative serves only briefly before being reassigned. Despite these operational challenges, we have maintained meaningful engagement across the workstreams.

Nigeria views the Global IHL Initiative as an important platform for States to address the serious challenges facing IHL implementation today. We remain committed to supporting initiatives from credible organizations that offer concrete solutions to the widespread disregard of IHL we witness globally, and we look forward to continuing our participation through the final round of consultations.