Law Simplified Video
Begin with our short Law Simplified video for a concise explanation of this legal topic. Then continue reading for a more detailed discussion below.
Historical Background and Rationale
The Illiterates Protection Act is a special statutory safeguard aimed at protecting illiterate persons from exploitation, fraud, and misunderstanding in transactions involving written documents, including important documents such as contracts, land agreements, and wills.
The Act emerged from the recognition that illiterate persons are particularly vulnerable in legal and commercial dealings where they must rely on others to prepare documents on their behalf. To prevent abuse of this position of trust, the Act imposes statutory duties on the person who prepares a document for an illiterate.
These duties include identifying the writer of the document and, where appropriate, confirming that the contents of the document were read over and explained to the illiterate person before it was executed.
Nigerian courts have consistently affirmed that the purpose of the law is protective rather than punitive. However, the courts have also cautioned that the law must not be used as an instrument of injustice or technical ambush against innocent parties. Its provisions are therefore applied in a manner that protects genuine illiterates while preventing abuse by persons who were not the intended beneficiaries of the statute.
Meaning of an “Illiterate” in Law
The Court of Appeal in MAKAMA v. IBRAHIM & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62084(CA)clarified the legal meaning of the term “illiterate” within the context of documents prepared on behalf of a person.
The Court explained that an illiterate is not merely someone without formal education. Rather, the determining factor is whether the person can read, write, or understand the language used in the document.
The Court stated:
“The word ‘illiterate’ has been defined to mean a person who is unable to read with understanding and to express his thoughts by writing in the language used in the document made or prepared on his behalf. He is a person who is unable to write or read or understand a document. See Anyanru v. Mandilas Limited (2007) 4 SC (Pt. III) 58 at 79; Dugeri v. Vee-Networks Ltd (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1442) 30 at 50.”
— Per MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA (P. 15, Paras C–E)
Burden of Proving Illiteracy
Another important principle under the Illiterates Protection Act is that illiteracy is not presumed. The burden rests on the person who asserts it.
In UGWU v. NWONUMA (2025) LPELR-81047(CA), the Court of Appeal clarified that a party who seeks to avoid a document on the ground that they are illiterate must prove that fact before the court.
The Court stated that:
“The burden of proving that a person is an illiterate person falls on the party who asserts illiteracy and seeks to avoid a document on that basis, and the same cannot be presumed or proved by oral evidence. See Adetoro v Union Bank of Nig. Plc (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 255, 281 and 303.”
— Per JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JCA (P. 21, Paras E–F)
Purpose of the Illiterates Protection Act
The Court of Appeal in KOUDI V. LAWAL (2021) LPELR-56014(CA) reaffirmed the fundamental objective of the Illiterates Protection Act.
The Court explained that the legislation exists primarily to protect illiterate persons from fraud, exploitation, and unfair advantage in transactions involving written documents.
The Court stated:
“It must not be forgotten that the object of the Illiterate Protection Act is to safeguard illiterates from fraud and exploitation. It is to prevent the writer of a document which creates legal rights from enforcing it unless he has strictly complied with the law. See cases of ITAUMA v. AKPE-IME (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 680) PG. 156 AT 175 E-F per Ogwuegbu JSC; ANYABUNSI v. UGWUNZE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 401) Per Onu JSC; FATUNBI v. OLANLOYE (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 887) PG. 229 SC AT 250 – 251 PARA. G -A Per Pats-Acholonu JSC.”
— Per ABDUL-AZEEZ WAZIRI, JCA (Pp. 35–36, Paras E–A)
Whether Testifying in a Native Language Makes a Person an Illiterate
The Court of Appeal in YALO & ANOR v. BUHU (2019) LPELR-50969(CA) (PP 10-12 PARAS D-E) clarified that the mere fact that a witness gives evidence in a native language does not automatically make that person an illiterate.
The Court emphasized that illiteracy must be proved by evidence, and it cannot be presumed simply because a person chooses to testify in a local language.
The Court held in substance that speaking a native language in court does not establish illiteracy. What is relevant is whether the person can read or write with understanding in the language of the document in question.
The Court further reiterated the Supreme Court’s definition of an illiterate in Lawal v. G. B. Ollivant (Nig) Ltd (1972) LPELR-1764 (SC), where it was explained that an illiterate is a person who cannot read or write in any language, or who cannot understand the language used in the document prepared on their behalf.
Statutory Requirements under the Illiterates Protection Act (variously enacted in different States of Nigeria)
A typical provision, such as Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law (Cap. 93, Laws of Enugu State 2004),states:
“Any person who shall write any letter or document at the request, or on behalf, or in the name of any illiterate person shall also write on such letter or document his own name as the writer thereof and his address…”
Section 4 provides a sanction — usually a fine — for failure to comply.
These provisions mean that for a document written on behalf of an illiterate person to be enforceable by the writer, it must:
Contain the name and address of the writer;
Clearly indicate that it was prepared at the request, or on behalf, or in the name of the illiterate person;
Where applicable, include an illiterate jurat confirming that the document was read over and explained to the illiterate person in a language they understand before signing.
Effect of Absence of an Illiterate Jurat
The Court of Appeal in MAC-PHILIPS & ORS v. LLOYD & ORS (2023) LPELR-60418(CA)clarified the legal effect of failing to include an illiterate jurat in a document signed by an illiterate person.
The Court held that the absence of an illiterate jurat does not automatically render the document null and void. However, such a document cannot be enforced against the illiterate person because the requirement exists for the illiterate’s protection.
The Court stated:
“…it is trite law that the absence of a jurat on a document made or signed by an illiterate does not render the document null and void but cannot be used and/or enforced against the illiterate dead Testatrix. See the case of Sunday Vs. FRN (supra). I am of the opinion in relation to the instant case that the complaint on Exhibit A not containing a ‘jurat’ is of no moment because absence of ‘jurat’ in a document signed by an illiterate does not render such document null and void since a ‘jurat’ is for the protection of the illiterate and therefore not to be used against his interest.”
— Per RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA (P. 31, Paras A–C)
Application of the Illiterates Protection Act/Law in Criminal Investigations
The Supreme Court has clarified that the Illiterates Protection Act/Law does not apply to statements recorded by the police during criminal investigations.
In ENEBELI v. STATE (2021) LPELR-54990(SC), the appellant argued that his confessional statement should be rejected because it did not comply with Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Law of Delta State.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that statements made to the police during criminal investigations do not fall within the protection of the Illiterates Protection Law because such statements do not involve civil rights or contractual obligations.
The Court stated:
“Appellant counsel at pg.6, paras 2.15 stated that Exhibit ‘P5’ (the appellant confessional statement failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Section 3 of the Illiterate Protection Law of Delta State; Laws of Delta State of Nigeria, 2006. We submit that a statement made to a police officer by an accused person in the course of investigation does not fall within the protection under the Illiterate Protection Law, as such statement does not involve the civil rights and/or obligations of either the accused person or the police officer. A statement obtained from a person accused of a crime or witnesses thereto is not equated with a document that confers an interest in the writer. The statement so obtained forms part of the evidence of the prosecutor which has the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. To put it straight, the Illiterates Protection Law did not apply to the confessional statement of the appellant recorded in the course of investigation.”
— Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC (Pp. 54–55, Paras A–B)
Who Can Complain Under the Law
Protection is personal to the illiterate concerned.
In DAUKA & ORS V. KOMI (2023) LPELR-60732(CA), the Court clarified that:
Only the illiterate person who executed the document can complain about non-compliance; Witnesses or third parties cannot invoke the law on behalf of the illiterate; The complaint must relate to the fact that the document was not read over or explained before signing.
This approach prevents third parties from abusing the statute by raising objections on behalf of an illiterate who has not complained.
Judicial Approach to Non-Compliance
The courts have adopted a strict approach:
In EZEIGWE v. AWUDU (2008) LPELR-1200(SC), it was held that a non-compliant document cannot be presumed to have been understood by the illiterate signer.
In UGWU v. NWONUMA (2025) LPELR-81047(CA), the Court emphasised that compliance with Section 3is obligatory and benefits arising from the document can only be enforced by the writer if the law’s requirements are met.
In ADEKUNLE & ANOR v. S. K. AJAYI (NIG.) LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-21959(CA), the Court ruled that the law’s protection does not apply where the document was not prepared at the illiterate’s request or on their behalf, even if they signed it.
Special Considerations for Legal Practitioners
Nigerian courts have recognised that documents prepared by legal practitioners may fall outside the strict operation of the Illiterates Protection Law where the illiterate person is deemed to be receiving professional legal advice.
In GAJIMI v. FBN PLC (2018) LPELR-43996(CA),the Court held that a legal practitioner preparing a document for an illiterate client is not required to personally interpret and explain the document before the client signs it, because the client is deemed to be under legal representation and advice.
Practical Examples
Compliant scenario:
An illiterate seller engages a writer to prepare a land sale agreement. The writer includes their name and address on the document, reads it over in a language the seller understands, and the seller signs. This document is enforceable.
Non-compliant scenario:
An illiterate person signs a guarantor form for a friend, but the document was prepared at the friend’s request and not on behalf of the illiterate. The law does not protect the illiterate in such a case.
Like many statutory protections in Nigerian law, compliance with the Illiterates Protection Law may determine whether a claim can succeed or fail, much like the operation of limitation statutes which can bar claims after a specified time.
Consequences of Breach
For the writer – They may be unable to enforce rights or benefits arising from the document.
For the illiterate – They can challenge the validity of the document and potentially avoid obligations imposed by it.
For the transaction – The court may allow other evidence to establish what actually transpired when the document was prepared, but the presumption of validity will not apply.
In some circumstances where a dispute over such a document leads to criminal allegations such as fraud or forgery, the accused person may also need to apply for bail pending trial.
Key Takeaways
The Illiterates Protection Act/Law is a statutory shield for illiterate persons in written transactions.
Only the illiterate person concerned can invoke it.
Strict compliance with the law’s requirements is essential.
Legal practitioners enjoy an exception in certain cases.
Compliance is not merely procedural — it directly affects enforceability of rights.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored guidance on the Illiterates Protection Law or any related legal matter, please consult a qualified legal practitioner.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.