Human Rights Vs. Fundamental Rights: A Legal Breakdown
Why the Distinction Matters in Law
THE concepts of human rights and fundamental rights are central to modern legal systems, yet they are frequently misunderstood or conflated. While both aim to protect human dignity and freedom, constitutional development has drawn a clear legal distinction between the two.
This distinction affects how rights are recognised, who enforces them, and the extent to which individuals can seek legal remedies when violations occur.
Human Rights: Universal and Inherent
Human rights arise from the idea that all people possess certain rights simply because they are human. These rights are universal, inherent and inalienable. They do not depend on a person’s nationality or the laws of a particular country.
Examples of human rights include freedom from torture, the right to education, access to healthcare, and the right to life. These rights are considered essential to human dignity and social justice.
The formal recognition of human rights gained momentum after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. This declaration established a global consensus that certain rights belong to all people, regardless of race, religion, citizenship or political affiliation.
Human Rights in International Legal Frameworks
Human rights are primarily embedded in international law. Treaties such as the ICCPR and the African Charter define standards that states are expected to uphold. By ratifying these treaties, countries commit themselves to respecting these rights and submitting to international oversight mechanisms.
However, international human rights law often lacks direct enforcement mechanisms. While international courts and commissions can issue findings and recommendations, actual enforcement typically depends on the willingness and legal structures of individual states.
Fundamental Rights: Constitutional Guarantees
Fundamental rights are those rights that a state has incorporated into its constitution. They are “fundamental” because they are guaranteed by the highest law of the land and are enforceable against the government and, in some cases, private individuals.
In Nigeria, fundamental rights are enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). These provisions impose binding obligations on the state and provide citizens with a legal basis to challenge violations in court.
Unlike human rights, fundamental rights are territorially bound. They apply within the jurisdiction of a particular state and are shaped by that country’s constitutional framework.
Domestic Enforcement and Judicial Protection
The enforceability of fundamental rights is one of their defining features. Courts have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions, grant remedies and compel compliance by public authorities.
Human rights, unless domesticated, often lack this immediate enforceability at the domestic level. This creates a gap between international commitments and local realities, especially in countries where treaties have not been fully incorporated into national law.
Nigeria’s Dual Obligations
Nigeria exemplifies the interaction between human rights and fundamental rights. While it has ratified numerous international human rights treaties, only those that have been domesticated can be directly enforced in Nigerian courts.
The domestication of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has expanded the scope of enforceable rights, allowing courts to rely on both constitutional provisions and international norms.
Conclusion: Complementary, Not Competing Concepts
Human rights and fundamental rights are not competing ideas but complementary legal concepts. Human rights establish universal standards of dignity and justice, while fundamental rights translate those standards into enforceable constitutional guarantees.
Understanding the distinction empowers citizens to better assert their rights and clarifies the legal responsibilities of states. In modern constitutional democracies, both forms of rights remain indispensable to the protection of freedom, equality and human dignity.
