Application of the subsidiarity principle in intercountry adoption in Nigeria: Lessons from South Africa

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Citation: (2018) 5(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 22
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Pages: 22-44
• Author: Adelakun, O.S.

22

APPLICATION OF THE SUBSIDIARITY

PRINCIPLE IN INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION IN

NIGERIA: LESSONS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Olanike S Adelakun*

Abstract

International law recognises the right of a child to be raised in a family environment.

The loss of the right to be raised by natural families led to alternative care such

as institutional care and substitute family placements. The United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as well as the African Charter

on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) recognises the family as an

atmosphere of love, happiness and the natural environment for the growth and

well-being of children. Both instruments recognise adoption as an alternative care

for children deprived of family care and require states that permit adoption to

ensure the best interests of the child as paramount consideration. Furthermore,

these instruments stipulate that intercountry adoption may be considered as an

alternative means of care if the child cannot be placed in a foster or adoptive family

or cannot be reasonably cared for in his/her country of origin. Nigeria is a party to

both the CRC and ACRWC but has not ratified the Hague Convention. Nigeria

domesticated these instruments by enacting the Child Right’s Act (CRA) in 2003.

This paper seeks to explore the principle of subsidiarity as it applies to intercountry

adoption cases. The paper compares the regulatory frameworks of South Africa and

Nigeria to examine how the subsidiarity principle is applied in Nigeria.

Keywords: subsidiarity principle, intercountry adoption, Nigeria,

alternative care, family

Résumé

Selon le droit international, l’enfant a le droit d’être élevéen milieu familial.

La perte du droit d’être élevé par des familles naturelles a abouti aux soins

alternatifs tels que les soins institutionnels et les placements au sein des familles de

substitution. La Convention des Nations unies sur les droits de l’enfant (CDE)

ainsi que la Charte africaine sur les droits et le bien-être de l’enfant (CADBE)

reconnaissent la famille comme un cercle d’amour et de bonheur et l’environnement

naturel pour le développement et le bien-être de l’enfant. Les deux instruments

reconnaissent l’adoption comme un soin alternatif pour les enfants privés des soins

familiaux et exigent que les États permettant l’adoption assurent les meilleurs

intérêts de l’enfant comme une considération primordiale. En outre, ces instruments

précisent que l’adoption internationale peut être considérée comme un moyen

alternatif de soins si l’enfant ne peut pas être placé dans une famille d’accueil

ou adoptive ou ne peut pas raisonnablement être pris en charge dans son pays

* LLM, MLIS, BL; Lecturer, American University of Nigeria; LLD Candidate, University of

Pretoria, South Africa; nikegolden@yahoo.com.

(2018) 5(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 22

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

APPLICATION OF THE SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE IN INTERCOUNTRY

ADOPTION IN NIGERIA: LESSONS FROM SOUTH AFRICA 23

d’origine. Le Nigeria est parti à la fois à la CDE et à la CADBE mais n’a

pas ratifié la Convention de la Haye. Le Nigeria a domestiqué ces instruments

enpromulguantlaloisurlesdroitsdel›enfant(LDE) en 2003. Cet article cherche

à explorer le principe de la subsidiarité tel qu’il s’applique auxcas d’adoption

internationale.Il compare les cadres règlementaires de l’Afrique du Sud à ceux

du Nigeria afin d’examiner en quoi le principe de la subsidiarité est appliqué au

Nigeria.

Mots clés: principe de subsidiarité, adoption internationale, Nigeria, soins

alternatifs, famille.

Introduction

According to most international instruments, children have a right to

family life1 capable of providing them with love, care, understanding,

guidance and counselling, as well as moral and mental security.2 The family

environment in the context of these instruments has been construed to

mean the original birth f amily of the child.3 The loss of legal right to

be raised by original family led to alternative care for the child which

includes institutional and substitute family placements as contained in the

UN Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection

and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and

Adoption Nationally and Internationally, 1986 (1986 Declaration),4 the

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),5 African Charter on the

Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC), 1990, and the Convention

on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry

Adoption, 1993 (Hague Convention).

Intercountry adoption involves the movement of a child who is

habitually resident in one country to another country by the adoptive

parents who are habitually resident in that other country, for the purpose

of the child’s adoption.6 Intercountry adoption differs from international

adoption in that while the latter involves the adoption of a child different

from the nationality of the prospective adoptive parents, the former

involves the movement of the adopted child from the country of his

1 In line with ar ticles 8 and 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989.

2  Lourdes G Balanon ‘A child’s journey across international frontiers: The Asian experience’

in J Doek et al (eds) Children on the Move: How to Implement Their Right to Family Life (1996) 123.

3 Richard R Carlson ‘A child’s right to a family versus a state’s discretion to institutionalize the

child’ (2016) 47 Georgetown Journal of International Law 937–1012.

4 United Nations ‘Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and

Welfare of Children with Special Reference to Adoption and Foster Placement Nationally and

Internationally’ (1986).

5 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ‘Convention on the

Rights of the Child’ (1989).

6 Anne S Louw ‘Intercountry adoption in South Africa: Have the fears become fact?’ (2006)

39:503 De Jure 502–521.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd