Both  India and Nigeria are large in terms of population,  culturally diverse with  federal architectures. Consequently, laws guaranteeing rights and  liberties enacted by  the central government  are hard to realize (make real) at the regional and local levels.

A key reason is the legal pluralism that tolerates exceptions from 'national'  rights guarantees. While  most models of norm diffusion e.g. regarding rights & liberties assume top down diffusion occurs only regarding  legal enactments. Such laws must be 'domesticated', i.e. pressed for, enacted and implemented at all levels.  People must first know they have rights or liberties & know that they can  trump regional or local exceptions ('we don't do it that way here'). But historically, the British introduced federal architecture in both countries because of  resistance to the  legal uniformity more likely to characterize unitary states.

When we consider the extent to which international & 'national' rights regimes have been 'domesticated' in the two countries, it is apparent that, although basic political rights are better established in India than in Nigeria, in both governments' lack the capacity to enforce laws that protect rights and liberties. This is especially evident when marginalized groups, women etc are involved. Both countries have very large Muslim minorities, but have adopted multiple types of legal pluralism that make enacting rights guarantees difficult.  This opens up many opportunities for corruption.

The agency UN Women in its 2013 annual  report pointed to legal pluralism as a major barrier to women getting protection from rights guarantees, so ensuring that  governments' enforcement  agencies  actually them when they demand their rights is key. In both countries courts are more vigorous enforcers.  But legal pluralism is also used to protect the private spheres of family and local community from 'interfering'.

In both countries, there also has been a lot of down/off loading of responsibilities to non-state authorities in areas that relate e.g. to women's rights/freedoms. The status of 'customary law' is a problem in both countries.

Since the diffusion of norms regarding rights and liberties enforcement is very uneven in both federations, comparing between them as 'countries' may not be the best strategy.

 I'd suggest comparing between the regional states that are the  leaders in rights enforcement in the two countries and between the laggards. What are the key differences..do the leader states have  greater capacities for enforcement? why are they more capable? do they have longer histories of successful rights enforcement? are their enforcement agencies less corrupt? (e.g. Kerala comes to mind as a leader in India. ) Also with the laggards....do they have less capacity for enforcement? why? are they more diverse?  do they  have histories of conflicts around rights enforcement? are their enforcement agencies more corrupt?  Do leaders and laggards differ in their insistence on legal pluralism? Or is it their rejection of legal pluralism as in the Muslim-majority states in Nigeria that  made Muslim law apply to the territory i.e. including non-Muslims. 

In Nigeria civil rights are mostly subject to education and awareness however in India civil rights are mainly based on religion and caste system within Hindus.

In Nigeria just like India, civil right is in most cases defined by political influence, money , ethnicity, religion and less often the level of education. your right starts and ends based on any of the above. the enforcer considers the above. i disagree with Jill vickers on the extent to which international & 'national' rights regimes have been 'domesticated' in the two countries by putting India ahead because while the four negative element mentioned at the beginning of my answer is largely prevalent in both countries the fifth element of cast is added in India which does not exist in terms of civil right in Nigeria.

India has been a democracy for over half a century while has had alternating periods of democracy and authoritarian regimes. Both have weak enforcement.  India  has  a stronger women's movement than Nigeria. Okpara fails to mention 'gender' in the factors he lists that affect the enforcement of civil rights.  But since women constitute 50+ % of the population, it must be considered.