Love Is Not a Substitute for a Prenuptial Agreement: The Cross-Border Financial Risks Facing Nigerians Abroad -By Daniel Nduka Okonkwo

The growing conversation around prenuptial agreements is challenging a deeply rooted assumption that preparing for the financial consequences of a possible divorce amounts to questioning the sincerity of marriage. Yet financial planners and family-law professionals increasingly frame a prenup not as a declaration of anticipated failure, but as an exercise in transparency, prudence, and mutual financial protection. It is about establishing what each partner brings into a marriage, clarifying financial responsibilities, protecting legitimately acquired assets, and ensuring that neither party enters the relationship under misleading financial expectations or undisclosed intentions. Critics argue that introducing a legal contract into a union founded on love undermines the ideal of unconditional commitment. However, commitment and financial preparedness are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, negotiating difficult financial questions while trust and goodwill still exist is considerably less contentious than attempting to resolve them after a relationship has deteriorated and the parties are confronting the emotional and financial consequences of separation. Marriage should not require either partner to surrender financial independence as proof of love, just as a prenuptial agreement should never become an instrument of intimidation or exploitation. The success of a marriage cannot be measured by how much wealth either partner protects, nor should its possible dissolution automatically be regarded as a personal failure. There are circumstances in which leaving an unhappy or destructive marriage is a courageous decision, particularly when children are involved, and the relationship no longer provides a healthy example of love, respect, and responsibility. The more difficult question, therefore, is not whether couples should contemplate the possibility of separation before marrying, but whether genuine commitment is strengthened rather than diminished when two people have the honesty and maturity to discuss their financial futures openly.

For many Nigerians, marriage is traditionally understood as a lifelong commitment built on trust, shared responsibilities, family values, and the expectation that both partners will work towards a common future. Consequently, suggesting that intending spouses sign a prenuptial agreement can attract suspicion, resistance, or the uncomfortable question of whether one partner is already preparing for divorce. Yet, as increasing numbers of Nigerians relocate to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and other Western countries, an important legal and financial reality deserves greater attention: marriage does not operate under identical property laws across national borders. Couples who marry or establish matrimonial homes abroad may discover that the financial assumptions they inherited from Nigerian society differ considerably from the laws governing their marriages in their countries of residence. A prenuptial agreement, commonly called a prenup, is therefore not necessarily an expression of distrust. Properly negotiated, it is a financial arrangement intended to establish transparency, define expectations, and provide a framework for addressing property and financial responsibilities if a marriage breaks down.

The scale of Nigeria’s diaspora makes this conversation particularly significant. Estimates indicate that more than 17 million Nigerians live outside the country, with approximately 822,415 residing in the United Kingdom, 780,581 in the United States, and 658,807 in Canada. These figures emphasize the substantial Nigerian presence in jurisdictions governed by matrimonial and property laws that differ considerably from those in Nigeria. The economic relationship between Nigerians abroad and their homeland is equally significant. According to the Central Bank of Nigeria, personal remittance inflows reached $20.93 billion in 2024, an increase of 8.9 percent over the previous year. Behind these figures are Nigerians supporting family members, acquiring properties, investing in businesses, and maintaining substantial financial interests in their homeland while establishing lives abroad. For couples in these circumstances, marriage can create financial interests, property claims, and legal obligations that extend beyond national borders, potentially bringing more than one country’s legal system into consideration when a relationship breaks down.

The first major misconception requiring correction is the assumption that every foreign divorce automatically entitles a wife to 50 percent of everything her husband owns. That is not an accurate description of the law across Western jurisdictions. In the United States, property division depends substantially on state law. Some states operate community-property systems, generally treating qualifying marital property acquired during marriage as equally owned, while other states apply equitable distribution, under which courts determine a fair division using statutory considerations. Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution. The distinction matters because a spouse’s earnings, contributions to the household, duration of marriage, financial circumstances, and the classification of assets can influence the outcome. The American legal framework also distinguishes between marital property and separate property, although the treatment of particular assets depends on the applicable state law and circumstances. Consequently, a Nigerian man who assumes that his wife receives nothing because he earns the household income could be seriously mistaken. Equally, a Nigerian woman should understand that her financial and non-financial contributions may carry substantial legal significance.

The United Kingdom presents another important legal distinction. In England and Wales, prenuptial agreements are not automatically binding contracts that remove the court’s discretion in divorce proceedings. However, their legal significance changed substantially following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. The court established that appropriate weight should be given to an agreement freely entered into by both parties with a full appreciation of its implications, unless it would be unfair, in the circumstances prevailing, to hold them to it. This means that an agreement is not automatically enforceable simply because both partners signed it. The court considers the circumstances surrounding its preparation, whether there was pressure or undue influence, whether both parties understood its implications, and whether enforcing its terms would produce an unfair outcome. The financial needs of the parties and the welfare of children remain important considerations. Scotland and Northern Ireland also have distinct legal frameworks, meaning that the rules applicable in England and Wales should not be indiscriminately presented as the law throughout the United Kingdom.

The implications for Nigerian property ownership are particularly important. A Nigerian living in London, Manchester, Toronto, Houston, or Atlanta may own land inherited from parents, residential buildings acquired before marriage, shares in Nigerian companies, rental properties, or businesses established with family members. The assumption that these assets are automatically beyond consideration in a foreign divorce is unsafe. Depending on the jurisdiction, the nature of ownership, the parties’ financial circumstances, and the applicable matrimonial law, overseas assets may be relevant to financial disclosure and settlement proceedings. However, it is equally important to distinguish between a foreign court considering the value of an overseas asset and having direct authority to transfer title to land situated in Nigeria. Those are separate legal questions. In England and Wales, for example, the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 establishes jurisdictional requirements and directs courts to consider international connections and the availability and enforceability of financial relief. Nigerian land ownership, family property, inherited interests, and beneficial ownership, therefore, require proper documentation. A person holding property in trust for parents, siblings, or other relatives should not assume that describing it as family property will automatically establish that it belongs to someone else.

A further complication arises when assets acquired before marriage become mixed with marital finances. A person who enters marriage with substantial savings, investments, a business, or property may intend to preserve those assets for personal security or future generations. However, transferring money into joint accounts, using premarital savings to acquire a jointly occupied home, placing a partner on property documents, or combining inherited funds with household investments can complicate the legal distinction between separate and marital property. The precise consequences vary between jurisdictions. Inheritance and gifts may receive different treatment from assets accumulated during marriage, but they are not universally immune from financial claims. A properly prepared prenup can identify existing assets, explain their ownership, address future appreciation where legally permissible, and establish agreed arrangements for particular investments. It can also address liabilities, including student loans, credit-card balances, business debts, and mortgages. Without clear documentation, disputes may arise over who owns what, who contributed to its acquisition, and whether one partner assumed financial responsibility for the other’s obligations.

The immigration dimension introduces another layer of financial exposure that Nigerian couples should understand independently of matrimonial property law. In the United States, a person who signs Form I-864, an Affidavit of Support, undertakes a legally enforceable financial obligation towards the sponsored immigrant. According to the US Department of State and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, this obligation generally continues until the immigrant becomes a US citizen, earns or receives credit for 40 qualifying quarters of work, permanently loses lawful permanent resident status, and departs the United States, or either relevant party dies. Divorce does not automatically terminate the sponsorship obligation. In Canada, a sponsor who undertakes to support a sponsored spouse generally remains responsible for three years after that spouse becomes a permanent resident, even if the marriage ends. These are significant obligations, but they must not be confused with alimony or spousal maintenance ordered by a divorce court. A prenup cannot cancel immigration sponsorship obligations imposed by government law. Nor does the existence of an immigration sponsorship agreement establish that a marriage is transactional. The important issue is ensuring that couples understand the separate legal consequences of immigration sponsorship and marriage before making life-changing commitments.

Spousal maintenance is another issue that deserves attention, particularly where one partner earns substantially more than the other. A Nigerian professional working abroad may become the principal breadwinner while the other spouse undertakes childcare, manages the household, supports relocation, or sacrifices career opportunities to sustain the family. If the marriage ends, the court may consider the economic consequences of those arrangements when determining financial support. The fact that one spouse earned most or all of the income does not automatically eliminate the other’s potential entitlement. Equally, the higher-earning spouse is not automatically condemned to lifelong maintenance payments. The applicable legislation, duration of marriage, earning capacity, needs, childcare responsibilities, and other circumstances influence the outcome. A carefully negotiated prenuptial agreement can establish expectations concerning financial support, but provisions attempting to exclude reasonable needs or disregard the economic consequences of marriage may receive limited weight or be set aside. Children present an additional consideration. Parents entering second marriages should consider how existing inheritance plans, life insurance, family businesses, and property arrangements can protect children from previous relationships without unfairly prejudicing the financial rights of a future spouse or the welfare of children born into the marriage.

The growing acceptance of prenuptial agreements in the United States reflects a broader shift in attitudes towards financial transparency and planning before marriage. A September 2023 Harris Poll conducted for Axios found that approximately 50 percent of American adults were open to signing a prenuptial agreement, while about one in five married couples reported having one. These findings illustrate a growing recognition that discussing financial arrangements before marriage is not exclusively the concern of wealthy individuals, celebrities, or families with substantial inherited fortunes. Increasingly, couples are considering prenuptial agreements as practical instruments for protecting premarital assets, addressing existing debts, safeguarding family businesses, clarifying financial responsibilities, and establishing greater certainty about their financial future. For Nigerians marrying or settling abroad, this changing attitude reinforces the importance of understanding the legal and financial implications of marriage before entering a union governed by a different jurisdiction.

The Nigerian legal position also requires careful examination. Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1970 addresses the court’s powers concerning property settlements in matrimonial proceedings. Subsection (1) empowers the court to require a settlement of property belonging to either or both parties where it considers such an arrangement just and equitable. Subsection (2) specifically addresses property dealt with by ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements. However, this provision should not be misrepresented as creating an automatic statutory guarantee that every privately drafted Nigerian prenup will be enforced exactly as written. Nigerian courts retain judicial discretion, and the enforceability and effect of such agreements remain matters requiring legal interpretation. A 2023 academic study published in the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of Commercial and Property Law identified the absence of a sufficiently definite legal framework for prenuptial agreements in Nigeria as an important concern. This makes it particularly unwise for Nigerians marrying abroad to assume that an agreement prepared under Nigerian law will automatically satisfy the requirements of the country where they intend to live. A contract’s recognition, interpretation, and enforceability may depend on the relevant jurisdiction’s conflict-of-laws rules and matrimonial legislation.

For a cross-border prenuptial agreement to have a realistic prospect of being respected, its preparation must go beyond obtaining signatures on a document downloaded from the internet. Both partners should receive independent legal advice from qualified family lawyers familiar with the law of the country where they expect to establish their matrimonial home. Each should provide a comprehensive financial disclosure covering properties, investments, bank accounts, business interests, liabilities, and relevant inherited interests in Nigeria and abroad. The agreement should be negotiated and signed sufficiently early before the wedding to minimise allegations of pressure or coercion. There is no universal international rule requiring every prenup to be signed 28 days or three months before marriage; the appropriate timeline depends on local law and the circumstances. The parties must understand the agreement, consent freely, and have an opportunity to negotiate its terms. Where necessary, lawyers should consider applicable choice-of-law provisions, recognition issues, and whether additional agreements or estate-planning documents are required in Nigeria. Fairness is essential. An arrangement designed to protect one partner while leaving the other financially vulnerable is more likely to attract legal challenge than one founded on transparency and reasonable mutual protection.

The argument for prenuptial agreements among Nigerians marrying or settling abroad should not be reduced to a warning directed at men or an accusation that women are entering marriages for financial gain. Such narratives risk turning a legitimate legal and economic discussion into a gender conflict. Women also own businesses, inherit family property, earn substantial incomes, support relatives in Nigeria, and bring assets into marriage that deserve protection. Both partners can face financial exposure, and either can become economically vulnerable when a marriage breaks down. The real issue is the absence of informed financial planning in relationships that cross national borders. A prenup cannot guarantee that divorce will be inexpensive, prevent every dispute, override immigration legislation, or remove a court’s responsibility to protect children and address financial needs. It can, however, provide a documented starting point for determining ownership, responsibilities, and expectations before disagreements arise. As Nigeria’s diaspora continues to expand its financial and social connections across the world, couples must recognise that love and trust do not eliminate the need for legal understanding. Marriage should begin with honesty about finances, clarity about responsibilities, and respect for the rights of both partners. Protecting a family’s future should not begin after a marriage collapses. It should begin with informed decisions before two lives, two families, and sometimes two legal systems become financially intertwined.

Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is an investigative journalist, human rights advocate, and policy analyst based in Nigeria. He is the founder and publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate (PIHRA), a platform documenting the courage of human rights defenders and examining issues of governance, accountability, security, and fundamental rights.

His reporting on Nigerian governance, security-sector accountability, public finance, and human rights has appeared in Sahara Reporters, Vanguard, Daily Trust, African Defence Forum, Opinion Nigeria, and Daily Intel.

Read more of his work on the PIHRA website:
https://www.profilesinternationalhumanrightsadvocate.com.ng/

For tips, feedback, or collaboration, contact him at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.