Abstract
National security and counter-terrorism are often used by governments to justify violation of
individual rights, creating tension between state security and human rights protection in
Nigeria. This article examined how these seemingly conflicting duties can be balanced. It
raised key questions: Should individual rights be subject to national security? Who
determines the legitimacy of security measures? How have the United States and Britain
reconciled these concerns in their counter-terrorism efforts? Adapting doctrinal research
method, the paper relied on primary and secondary legal sources, combining comparative
analysis of U.S. and British case law. It finds that the political question doctrine—which
places national security beyond judicial scrutiny and subordinates’ individual rights—is
unconstitutional, arbitrary, and potentially anarchic. In contrast, the complementary
approach grounded in rule of law, aligns with democratic principles and affirms that the
ultimate aim of national security is protection of human rights. This paper advocates a
balanced framework where courts retain constitutional authority to review national security
measures, as provided under Section 45(1)–(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. Judicial deference to executive claims of security should not amount to
abdication of oversight. Lessons from U.S. Supreme Court and the UK House of Lords
demonstrate a willingness to check executive power. This paper recommended a paradigm
shift: cautious application of security measures, alignment with international human rights
obligations, and adoption of the UN’s human security framework, strengthened judicial
activism, an effective National Human Rights Commission, and active civil society
engagement to prevent abuses