On January 20, 2026, a Nigerian court will address the question of why, in 2026, women must still go to court to claim rights that should already be guaranteed.

Development Diaries reports that a women’s rights organisation, Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre, has gone to court to force the Nigerian state to implement laws it already passed.

The case seeks to compel the federal government to uphold the rights of survivors of rape and incest under Nigeria’s Violence Against Persons Prohibition (VAPP) Act. At its core, the suit asks if the law guarantees care; why, then, are survivors still being denied it?

WARDC’s legal action targets the Attorney General of the Federation and the ministers responsible for health and women’s affairs. The argument is that survivors of sexual violence are entitled, under existing Nigerian law, to comprehensive medical and psychosocial support.

This includes emergency medical treatment, trauma counselling, and access to lawful termination of pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. These are statutory obligations.

Yet, years after the VAPP Act came into force, survivors across Nigeria continue to encounter hospitals that refuse treatment, police officers who discourage reporting, and public institutions that shift responsibility endlessly. The result is a system where rights exist in theory but collapse in practice.

The seriousness of the case was underscored at an early hearing when no representatives of the federal government appeared in court. For advocates, this absence was a political signal.

When the state cannot be bothered to show up in a case about rape survivors, it reinforces a long-standing perception that violence against women is not treated as an urgent governance issue.

Observers have described the suit as a landmark case of national importance because it exposes a structural failure rather than an isolated lapse. Nigeria does not lack laws on sexual violence. It lacks political will, administrative clarity, and enforcement discipline, forcing survivors to navigate a maze of institutions that were never designed with their needs in mind.

The system failing here is gender justice and public health. Sexual violence is a health emergency, a mental health crisis, and a rights violation. When survivors are denied care, the harm multiplies. And unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, untreated trauma, and lifelong health consequences become part of the punishment imposed on victims rather than perpetrators.

This burden is not evenly shared, with poor women, young girls, survivors in rural areas, and those without legal representation facing the greatest obstacles. In many parts of Nigeria, social stigma combines with institutional neglect to silence survivors entirely. 

Responsibility for this failure lies squarely with federal authorities. The Attorney General’s office is responsible for enforcing federal law. The Ministry of Health must ensure that public health facilities provide mandated services.

As for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, it is tasked with safeguarding women’s rights and coordinating survivor support. When these institutions do not act in concert, laws like the VAPP Act become symbolic rather than protective.

The timing of the case also matters. Across Africa, women’s rights groups are warning of a growing backlash against gender equality, from attempts to weaken protections against harmful practices to resistance against survivor-centred justice.

Nigeria’s case sits squarely within this continental struggle. The question is whether the courts will be allowed to push the state towards compliance, or whether bureaucratic indifference will prevail.

WARDC’s action represents a broader push to translate legal texts into lived reality. It is an insistence that women’s rights are not optional, charitable, or subject to administrative convenience. They are binding obligations.

The court has now ordered the government to respond. What happens next will be telling. A serious response would mean clear directives to health facilities, budgetary commitments to survivor care, and accountability mechanisms for officials who deny services.