Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate rejoinder to my commentary on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Aguolu v. Aguolu (2025) LPELR-80269(CA). As a senior advocate of Nigeria and a student of justice, I believe in the power of dialogue, especially when it comes from citizens who are directly impacted by our legal system.

Let me start by assuring you that I fully recognize and appreciate the invisible contribution of homemakers like you. Indeed, your sacrifices, raising children, managing households, supporting spouses, and building homes with emotional and physical labour are fundamental to the institution of marriage and the health of society. You raise important questions. However, I believe there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the position I put forward regarding matrimonial property settlement in Nigeria.

At no point did I dismiss or undervalue the contributions of full-time homemakers. Rather, I emphasized that Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) does not impose a rigid, automatic 50/50 formula, but instead gives the courts a discretionary power to decide what is “just and equitable”, taking into account both financial and non-financial contributions. That includes exactly the type of domestic and emotional labour that you and many women provide over the course of a marriage.

The false narrative that Nigerian courts disregard the work of homemakers is not supported by the law or its application. In Oghoyone v. Oghoyone (CA), for instance, the Court of Appeal, made it clear that contributions to the welfare of the family, whether monetary or not, are relevant and must be considered.

While the UK has indeed adopted a formula of 50/50 presumption in some cases, even their courts recognize exceptions based on need, contribution, and fairness. What I caution against is transplanting that model wholesale into the Nigerian context, where marriages vary widely in structure, contribution patterns, and economic dynamics.

More importantly, what is progressive is not necessarily what is rigidly equal, but what is contextually fair. A homemaker in a 20-year marriage may justly receive the house. A spouse in a two-year union without children or major joint efforts may not. This is why Nigerian courts examine the facts and circumstances of each case.

You expressed concern that discretion “often favours the man.” If that has happened in specific cases, then we must indeed critique enforcement, but not the principle. Judicial discretion allows for sensitivity to real-life nuances that a rigid rule may overlook.

The question should not be whether we apply a one-size-fits-all 50/50 rule, but rather whether our judges are trained, sensitized, and empowered to make equitable decisions. The Nigerian legal framework already provides room for justice for women. What we need is consistent application and fairness.

You mentioned the unfairness of women being expected to prove their worth when they have no financial documents. I agree that this is a challenge. However, legal practitioners, including my lecturers like Prof Dorcas Odunaike of Babcock, have long advocated for reforms in judicial procedure to better capture domestic and informal contributions of women like you

Courts are not blind to the reality that many women contribute informally to a spouse’s business or manage the home full-time. Testimonies, witness statements, and patterns of lifestyle are admissible in evidence. Where properly presented, they form the basis for equitable distribution.

Mrs. Ibrahim, your plea for justice is valid, and I support the evolution of our legal culture to be more responsive to the vulnerable. But evolution must be grounded in principled fairness, not emotional reaction or foreign imitation.

My advocacy is, and I think you should join, to advocate for:

Stronger judicial training on evaluating non-financial contributions.

Legal aid and access to justice for vulnerable spouses.

Better documentation practices in marriages.

Encouraging courts to speak more boldly in defending homemakers’ rights.

Conclusion

Our legal system, though imperfect, does not punish homemakers. Rather, it gives room for their voices to be heard when presented properly. The call, therefore, is not for a blind 50/50 rule but for a legal culture that ensures the full dignity of women like you is recognized and preserved.

Let us work together, lawyers, homemakers, and policymakers to build that culture.

With utmost respect, Ma'am.

Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN