The Situation in Southern Cameroon: A Call for a Halt to Human Rights Repression

The ILA (Nigeria) Committee on Justice and Human Rights, acting under the protective mandate of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, is concerned over the ongoing events in the Republic of Cameroon and has considered it imperative to add its voice to the variously expressed opposition to the wanton violation of the rights of the people of  English speaking Provinces of Cameroon by the Government of the Republic of Cameroon.

The facts upon which the intervention of the Committee is established, as verified by CNN, Amnesty International and the African Bar Association, are as follow:

I.             That residents of Cameroon's two English-speaking provinces have longstanding grievances against the largely-francophone central government, complaining of economic marginalization and the imposition of French legal and education systems upon them;

II.           That in November and December 2016, Anglophone lawyers led protests against the use of French in courts, resulting in clashes with police in which protesters were killed;

III.         That the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium (CACSC) and Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), responded with series of strikes and "Operation Ghost Town" – a form of nonviolent resistance that requiring all supporters to stay at home;

IV.         That following the strikes, schools and courts in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon have been shut since November 2016;

V.           That on January 17, the government banned the CACSC and the SCNC, holding them responsible for the protests. The CACSC President Nkongho Felix Agbor-Balla and Secretary General Dr. Fontem Neba were arrested on charges relating to terrorism, and are yet to regain their freedom and have not been offered all the necessary facilities for fair and impartial trial.

Being aware that the issues leading to the current impasse are not new, the Committee takes cognisance of the following:

(a)  that the current situation is intimately linked to the events that occurred in British Southern Cameroon in the context of decolonisation having its root in the League of Nations Mandate System that partitioned Cameroon between Great Britain and France and which culminated in the plebiscite of the United Nations on Southern and Northern Cameroon independence question;

(b) That matters arising from the plebiscite have been a subject of litigation and discussion at several international forums, particularly, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples;

(c) That the Committee is aware that the facts presented to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights on the Southern Cameroon (‘Ambazonia’) in the case of Gorji-Dinka v Cameroon (2005) AHRLR 18 (HRC 2005), particularly, paragraphs 2.1 to 3.2, were unchallenged by the government of Cameroon;

(d) The Committee also takes cognisance of Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon (communication 266/03) in which, after it had painstakingly considered the position of both parties, the African Commission made the following findings:

·         On the facts presented that Cameroon’s law enforcement officers were employing torture, amputations and denial of medical treatment to suppress the Southern Cameroon question, against the claim of government of Cameroon that the agitators had perpetrated terrorist acts in the country, the Commission found Cameroon liable, emphasising that the methods employed by Cameroon were unjustified; 

·         On the imposition of French on the Anglophone regions, the Commission found that it was wrong for institutions, such as banks to force Southern Cameroon based companies to change their basic documents into French in violation of Article 2 of the African Charter;

·          On the failure of Cameroon to guarantee fair trial to the Anglophone activists, the Commission found Cameroon in violation, for:

-       transferring individuals from Southern Cameroon to Francophone Cameroon for trial by military tribunals,

-      denying interpreters to those  tried in civil law courts;

·         The Commission found (concerning the individuals that were tried in French without the help of interpreters) that, having denied them the opportunity to adequately prepare their defence, Cameroon violated articles 7.1.b, 7.1.c and 7.1.d of the Charter.

·         The Commission was categorical in finding that the tendency of military tribunals is to act as an extension of the executive, rather than the judiciary, and that they are not intended to try civilians but to try military personnel under laws and regulations which govern the military. The Commission finds that trying civilians by the Yaoundé and the Bafoussam Military Tribunals was a violation of the right to fair hearing;  

·         The facts before the Commission showed cases of suppression of demonstrations with excessive force as well as the unlawful arrest and detention of protesters, peaceably exercising their right to freedom of assembly. The Commission found that some of the detained persons were acquitted while some died at the hands of security forces or in detention. The Commission found Cameroon in violation of article 11 of the African Charter.

·          The Commission also condemned the relocation of business enterprises and location of economic projects to Francophone Cameroon, which generated negative effects on the economic life of Southern Cameroon as a violation of article 19 of the Charter.

(e) Having carefully considered the similarities of behaviour of the government of Cameroon that gave rise to the aforementioned cases to those now being employed by the government (and which show that Cameroon failed to implement the recommendations of the Commission), it is the view of this Committee that for their currency and relevance to the presence situation, fitting to adopt and reiterate the recommendations and to strongly urge the Cameroonian government to take all necessary steps to implement the findings as an important step towards the resolution of the historic Southern Cameroon question.

(f)   Accordingly, we call on the government of Cameroon to, among others:

·         release forthwith all those who are currently detained or are being tried for and in respect of matters arising from the southern Cameroon question;

·         commence a process of national dialogue and payment of compensation to all individuals whose rights have been violated by the unwarranted use of force by the government of Cameroon against the people of Anglophone regions of Cameroon. 

·         address the grievances expressed by the  English speaking Provinces of Cameroon through its democratic institutions. The 1993 Buea and 1994 Bamenda Anglophone conferences raised constitutional and human rights issues which have been a matter of concern to a sizable section of the Anglophone Regions of Cameroon for quite a long time;

·         immediately begin sincere, inclusive and purposive process of consultations towards the amendment of 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon to address the demands of the Anglophone Regions of Cameroon, particularly since it did not accommodate the concerns expressed through the 1993 Buea Declaration and 1994 Bamenda Proclamation;

·         abolish all discriminatory practices against people of Southern Cameroon, including equal usage of the English language in business transactions;

·         stop the transfer of accused persons from the Anglophone provinces for trial in the Francophone provinces;

·         ensure that every person facing criminal charges be tried under the language he/she understands;

·         locate national projects, equitably throughout the country in accordance with economic viability as well as regional balance;

·         enter into constructive dialogue with the Anglophone Regions of Cameroon, and in particular, CACSC and the SCNC, to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances which could threaten national unity; and

·         to carry out judicial reform towards guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

·         That the Southern Cameroonians’ should cooperate with sincere and meaningful attempts by the government to resolve their grievances by constitutional means.

Dr Amos O Enabulele,

Chairman

ILA (Nig) Committee on Justice & Human Rights

BENIN MAKES THE DECLARATION TO ALLOW NGOS AND INDIVIDUALS TO DIRECTLY ACCESS THE AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS

Tuesday, 01 March 2016 18:12

• font size  

Arusha, 1 March, 2016:   The Republic of Benin becomes the eighth AU Member State to make the Declaration under Article 34 (6) of the

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right to allow Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and individuals directly access the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

 

The Declaration was deposited to the African Union Commission on February 8, 2016.

 

Others State Parties to the Protocol which have made the Declaration recognising the competence of the Court to receive cases from NGOs and individuals are: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda and Tanzania.

 

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is a continental court established by the AU to enhance the protection of human and peoples’ rights in Africa. 

 

As at 31 January, 2016 thirty (30) countries had ratified the Protocol out of 54 AU Member States.

PRE-EMPTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS: A MERE SHENANIGAN TO FRUSTRATE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS?

Destiny Ogedengbe

        University of Benin, Nigeria

Editor's note: The views expressed here are exclusively the author's. They do not represent the views of the CJHR. 

The hub of this discussion is to appraise the criminal justice system vis-à-vis the enforcement of human rights in the course of criminal proceedings. It is needless to say that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, robustly provides for the fundamental rights of citizens and this is in consonance with the provisions of other international instruments which extol the need for citizens to enjoy their rights undisturbed, as it affects their wellbeing. This is commendable as it reflects a democratic system. However, what is of major concern are the Human Rights provisions which are invoked during criminal proceedings to ensure that citizens are not flagrantly reduced to nothingness without recourse to their rights even as accused persons. Of concern in this regard are provisions such as sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria, (CFRN) 1999. While section 35 protects citizens’ rights to personal liberty, section 36 enjoins state authorities to afford to an accused person the right to fair hearing during court proceedings.

          Over the years, it has not escaped the right of the observant that the dichotomy that exists between the rich and the poor extends to the enforcement of human rights particularly when and how these rights are enforced. It has always been the lot of the common man to be stripped of his rights especially during criminal proceedings. For instance, during the course of arrest, detention, investigation and prosecution, the men of straw are subjected to manhandling, different sorts of violation of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to bail, egress from detention bars. In the light of the fact that low-profile citizens of the country are barely in the know of their rights, coupled with their inability to employ the services of influential legal practitioners (if at all they could afford a legal practitioner) to defend their rights, they cannot keep a stiff upper lip and choose discretion as the better part of valour. On the other hand, top profile personalities in recent times, not to mention the far past, have appeared to be quick on the uptake in legal issues. In the face of serious criminal charges, they remain unruffled because they have the machinery of the law at their beck and call. They activate the process of the law speedily to stall the administration of justice and or even jeopardize the entire proceedings. Arrests detention and prosecutions have been stayed effortlessly by these eminent persons who seek several injunctive reliefs in their favour. The reliefs they seek offer them a longer rope to perambulate in the face of serious punishable offences, as opposed to citizens of no means.  

Of more serious concern is the act of preempting the violation of fundamental rights of these top profile persons by the law enforcement agents. They have been cases of these persons seeking injunctions to restrain law enforcement agencies from instituting arrests, investigations and or even prosecutions in deference to their rights. One will be forced to wonder what rights are being violated as their actions at best appear to be a deviation from the exercise of common sense. Rather shamefully, the courts have been generous in granting them these reliefs which ostensibly jettison the administration of justice and frustrate the   machinery of the law against them.  Injunction had been granted, for instance, to Peter Odili, former Rivers State Governor, restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from conducting any arrest, investigation or prosecution against him. The court gave him the leeway by way of a perpetual injunction to escape criminal prosecution. These actions have so far incited the public to vent criticisms on the judiciary as a whole. It is platitudinous therefore to hear members of the public say that lawyers, top-profile personalities and even the Nigerian courts are all together in the web of the unlawful acts; this is appalling! The precarious position now is that we cannot even say that the courts are totally exempt from these sordid acts.

Consequently, the afore-explained actions lead us to a number of issues necessary to be deliberated upon:  

Does an arrest, investigation and or prosecution generally violate the rights of accused persons and at what point can an application for the enforcement of human rights be said to be a proper response to an impending arrest, investigation and or prosecution?

Foremost, it will be unhealthy to hastily conclude that an arrest, investigation and or prosecution generally violate the rights of an accused person. It is lawful to institute an arrest when there is reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime by an individual. The power of arrest is recognised in section 20 of the Police Act, 2004. Thus, it amounts to no violation of the rights of a person if an arrest is done in the right procedure. Ancillary to an arrest is investigation and prosecution when justified. When the law enforcement body laid down rules under the Police Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, it suffices no violation of the right of an accused. A police officer who conducts an arrest and detains an accused person must ensure adherence to the abundant provisions of section 35 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 which guarantees personal liberty and stipulates the permissible period for which a suspect can be detained. More often than not, this right has not been given considerable thought. Some detainees spend up to a month without being charged to court or even being duly notified of their rights and in addition, they are manhandled. Some are arrested and taken to ‘Mobile Courts’ particularly on minor offences and embossed with guilt, without giving the accused persons the right to defend themselves. This is in gross violation of section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 in that it disregards the constitutional rights of the accused person.

To be absolutely clear, arrest, investigation and or prosecution do not constitute a violation of the rights of an accused person and to hold otherwise will be an unfair affront on the powers of arrests and investigations conducted by the law enforcement agencies in the country.

On the second limb of the issue, the proper point for an application for the enforcement of human rights as a response to an impending arrest, investigation or prosecution logically appears to be when there is a violation of such rights, or to stretch it a little, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such rights are being violated. As a point for discussion, proper understanding of the issue forces one to conclude safely that there cannot be an “application” for the “enforcement” of a right which is not being or has not been infringed upon. One can only apply to enforce a right that can reasonably be said to have been infringed. It is rather illogical, at least, in the eyes of an objective bystander, to propose that any accusation levelled against certain individuals and the corollary acts of arrest and investigation are violations of their rights. Many of these persons have cried wolf over their innocence yet they have refused to submit totally to judicial determination of their self-professed innocence. Rather, they meteorically jump the gun, seek injunctions to restrain further investigations. If it is not an injunction, then it is an issue of jurisdiction to stay indicting investigations and consequently jeopardize the entire proceedings and or use the appellate processes to clog the wheel of justice in a manner bordering on abuse of process, all with a view to avoiding a judicial ascertainment of their “innocence” altogether. For instance, what is the ratiocination behind the perpetual injunction granted to a former governor? Why does the court appear to be blind to the ruse employed by these persons? Are the courts hands in glove with these persons in their shady escapades? These are the questions that have been put forward by members of the public who have refused to stomach such outcries.

An application for the enforcement of a right only makes sense when such rights in question need to be enforced. Should not a right have be violated or should its violation be so imminent before the court is called upon to enforce such right? The judiciary must be careful not to inveigle itself. This business of trifling but far-reaching applications do not augur well with the general public for two reasons: firstly, it is suggestive that the judiciary cannot be said to be independent enough to allow justice take its course; secondly, it evinces that the rich can wrap the entire judicial process around their fingers and get it over with. A society that attends to such construable suggestions from the actions of the rich in preempting violations, suggestively, with support from the courts cannot repose so much confidence in the judiciary. Thus, it is of immense concern: such actions should be curbed.

Another issue that is open to deliberation is the question of whether there is any connection between enforcement of human rights and criminal processes carried out in apparent regularity with legally prescribed procedures?

The proper answer to the above issue would seem to be in the affirmative. The connection lies in the constitutional requirement that criminal processes be carried out in line with the accused persons’ constitutional human rights.  It cannot, however, be expected that law-enforcement officers and even judges would always act in rigorous compliance with the constitutionally protected rights of accused persons.

In the light of the above, a common ground has to be reached. That point is reached when a criminal process is carried on in violation of an accused person’s rights. If, for instance, pursuant to a criminal trial or investigation, an accused person is detained beyond the constitutionally guaranteed 48 Hours, in apparent violation of section 35(4) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, such a violation must become a rallying point for all against unlawfulness. It is thus incumbent and prudent for law enforcement agencies to secure permission from a court of competent jurisdiction to detain an accused beyond the constitutionally permitted duration. With such permission, their action would be within the bounds of the law.

It stands to reason, that whenever an investigation, detention and trial is being done inconsistently with the provisions of the law, that the accused should not feel encumbered, by the process of the law or public opinion, from seeking redress. The accused may do well to secure a court order impressing it on the law enforcement agency to carry out their functions in line with the provisions of the law. The problem, however, is the fact that there is so much imbalance in the response to such actions to secure court orders as it now depend on the pedestal of the person; the rich easily seek these court orders to enforce their rights while, on the other hand, the poor finds it difficult to seek such orders. This, it would appear to the objective bystander, to be the result of their inability to throw Sob to Cerberus, when demanded.

 An ancillary issue that stems up from the above is what forum could accused persons, if concerned (real or perceived) that their constitutional safeguards in Criminal trials were not being protected by the trial judge, seek the protection of the rights being violated? Should it be before the trial court or another court of coordinate jurisdiction or a matter to be raised on appeal?

There is always a real or perceived danger, whether borne out of current realities or sheer mischief by the accused persons that their fundamental rights are being violated by the law enforcement agencies and subsequently, not being protected by the trial judge. Due to deceptive human nature, such feelings might be waived at first. However, on a   deeper look, there might actually be real substance in such claims. While it is important for us to waive frivolous and mischievous feelings and suspicions as regards the violation of fundamental rights, we must not also treat with levity, such real possibilities of human rights violations in the course of criminal trials.

Hence, where the accused feels that his rights are being violated, the ideal thing to do would be to seek the protection of the courts. Where and when this protection is to be sought is a question of the accused person’s feelings and instincts, though ultimately in compliance with laid down procedures. For instance, in the course of the ongoing trial of the leader of the indigenous people of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, he openly expressed doubts as to the credibility of the presiding trial judge and the judge rightly stepped down from the case for another judge to continue the trial.

So, the accused person, it would appear to an ordinary man of reasonable prudence, is free to strive for the enforcement of his fundamental rights at any point and any court where he chooses. However, in his quest to ensure the enforcement of his rights and in the courts’ quest to ensure that an accused person’s fundamental rights are not violated, the proper thing for the court to do would be to make an order or orders to guide the process away from violation into compliance with and respect for the rights of the accused person. In short, it behoves a presiding judge to ensure that the rights of an accused person standing trial are upheld. This is right for the integrity of the court and of the entire trial and conviction, if the accused is convicted.

However, under no circumstances should an accused person’s trial be truncated upon a mere assertion of, or a perceived fear of fundamental rights violations. At best, the trial judge or any other judge should use his good offices to ensure the enforcement of these rights and not to truncate the trial. Any attempt to sacrifice the law, together with laid down procedures, on the altar of a perceived violation of one’s fundamental rights should be curbed especially by the courts which give room for such inurbane conducts.

In conclusion and in pursuance of the sacrosanct nature of the constitution, fundamental rights of citizens must be preserved by all means. The law enforcement agencies must always bear this in mind. However, this should never be a yardstick for staying court proceedings and thwarting the efforts of those designated to administer justice. It is indeed an unpalatable sign to the society, hence the more serious need to allow a smooth running of the criminal justice system clearly devoid of disruptions; a need to consider and espouse public policy to keep to the law in the course of preserving the rights of anyone called in question, high or low profile, notwithstanding. 

PRE-EMPTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS: A MERE SHENANIGAN TO FRUSTRATE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS?

                                                                     

                                         Editorial Note

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (applicable in Nigeria as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act), together form the main instruments of human rights protection in Nigeria.  Importantly, both instruments contain numerous safeguards that are very useful to an accused person, from the time of arrest through any consequential criminal proceedings. For instance, an accused person who has been arrested and detained beyond the constitutionally prescribed period, without a charge before a competent court, is entitled to seek enforcement of his right to personal liberty in a court of competent jurisdiction. Similarly, an accused person whose constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination, presumption of guilt, lack of fair hearing, trial under a retroactive or unwritten law can activate the relevant constitutional protection.

In the recent past, particularly in high profile cases, there has been an upsurge in the number of impending or ongoing criminal trials respecting which accused persons have made human rights enforcement applications with a view to an injunction, sometimes of a perpetual nature. The injunctions usually seek to forestall arrest, investigation or even truncate a criminal trial. Intriguingly, the applications are sometimes made after the accused has been charged to court; and before a different judge to the judge in whose court the accused is being tried or set to be arraigned.

The frequency of incurrence and the fact that some high profile cases have been delayed or out-rightly truncated by such applications/injunctions cannot but justify the consequential public interests and outrage it generates. It also appears to lend credence to the view of critics that lawyers connive with high profile accused persons to contrive subtle devices and evasions in the guise of human rights enforcement as an effective tool for shielding such accused persons from arrest, investigation and or criminal trial. Is it that the Nigerian law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted with arrest and investigation? Or are our courts not trusted to be independent enough to protect accused persons? Is it justifiable for accused persons to claim to be innocent of the chargers against them while at the same time resisting submitting to the societally accepted processes by which their innocence could be put beyond doubt? These are some of the questions that do resonate on every occasion that an accused person seeks protection under our bill of rights against the criminal processes.   

In order to illuminate the practice and enlighten the general public about the actual role of human rights enforcement in our criminal justice system, the interface between human rights enforcement and the criminal justice processes shall form the basis of this series. The series shall seek to answer the following questions:

1.   Can it be said that an arrest, investigation and or prosecution generally violate the rights of an accused person?

2.   At what point can an application for the enforcement of human rights be said to be a proper response to an impending arrest, investigation and or prosecution?

3.   Is there a real connection between enforcement of human rights and criminal processes carried out in apparent regularity with legally prescribed procedures?

4.   Should accused persons be concerned, whether real or perceived, that their constitutional safeguards in criminal trials were not being protected by the trial judge, where would be the proper forum for seeking the protection of the rights being violated? Should it be before the trial court or another court of coordinate jurisdiction? Or a matter to be raised on appeal?

Contributors are at liberty to modify these questions to suit the aspect of the problem they wish to address.

We expect to host at least eight legal experts from the academia, the bar and the bench over the next ten weeks (or more) period. Each contributor shall have a right of reply to any subsequent contribution that challenges the contributor’s thesis or any significant part thereof.

Style Guide

Contributions should be in Word, font size 12, Roman character, should ordinarily not exceed 3500 words (the more concise the better) and should be single-spaced. Contributors should use either endnotes (not footnotes) or embody citations in the work. 

All contributions should be sent electronically to the blog Editor and Chair of the CJHR – Dr. Amos O Enabulele on cjhr@ila-nigeria.org.ng or cjhr.ila.nig@gmail.com.   

CONSULTATIVE MEETING ON AFRICAN UNION TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE POLICY FRAMEWORK (ATJF) AS PART OF THE ACTION PLAN OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS STRATEGY FOR AFRICA

Friday, 25 December 2015 00:00

• font size  

Midrand, South Africa, 16 December 2015 -  The Department of Political Affairs of the African Union (AU) in collaboration with the African Court on Human and People’s Right based in Arusha organised a brainstorming meeting on 16-18 December 2015 in Midrand, South Africa, to exchange view on the theme of the upcoming year: “Human Rights in Africa with a particular focus on women” generally refered to as “Project 2016”, the Draft African Union Transitional Justice Policy Framework; and the meeting of the Human Rights and Transitional Justice Cluster of the African Governance Architecture (AGA).

Download Full Press Release

ANTI-RULE OF LAW: WHY NIGERIANS MUST CONDEMN THE COUNSEL OF MURIC

The attention of the International Law Association (Nigeria) Committee on Justice and Human Rights (CJHR) has been drawn to a statement credited to Muslims Rights Concern (MURIC) and published on Premium Times online platform. However well-intentioned the statement might be, it is in most parts a careless display of very disturbing credentials that should not escape condemnation by any individual or organisation that means well for both the Buhari government and the Nigerian People.  We are constrained to highlight and respond to the general preference of MURIC for chaos and executive tyranny to the rule of law. 

Part of their statement reads:

“The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) frowns at any attempt to make a mockery of the rule of law. It is a flagrant abuse of the principles of democracy to talk of human rights in defense of those who diverted huge funds earmarked for the purchase of arms. It is only in Nigeria that self-confessed criminals are indulged under the guise of democracy and the rule of law. How can anyone be talking of the rule of law now when the same rule of law gave those who stole N33 billion police pension fund a pat in the back and asked them to pay N750,000 only! The rule of law guaranteed the freedom of a dictator’s son who laundered N446 billion. The rule of law gave everlasting immunity to a former governor of Rivers State who stole $500 million. The list is endless”.

On a preliminary note, it is essential to make absolutely clear, that the CJHR has no sympathy whatsoever for any individual or group of persons, who partook (however remote in time) in the looting of the commonwealth of the Nigerian people, thereby condemning a vast majority of the population to perpetual penury and the unborn generation to international Shylocks, from whom the plunderers borrowed in the name of the Nigerian people only to convert the loans to their private use. Such individuals or groups should be tried and if convicted, stripped of every material gain and honours that were incidental to their privileged societal positions; they should be made to pay for every benefit they freely received while in office, the consideration for such benefits – selfless service to the nation – having failed. 
It is also our considered view that the Federal Government of Government should take immediate steps towards overhauling the entire criminal justice system to make it less amenable to the subtle invasions and evasions of high profile suspects in the guise of human rights enforcement. However, we believe that the path of the law must remain sacrosanct and be carefully followed in strict adherence to the Nigerian Constitution.

Having made that point, we consider it very reckless for any individual or organisation that claims to support the fight against corruption to advocate, with so much fervency, the overthrow of the rule of law on the basis of some half-truths. The rule of law is a process and not the result of a process. The thoughts of humans are fallible and judges are human. There is no legal system where judges do not err in law and sometimes in integrity. Such errors are not the grounds for assessing the rule of law, which is better assessed in processes, not in the substantive decision of any particular judge. Rather than demonstrate the failure of the rule of law, it was rather the failure to follow the rule of law that created the examples cited by MURIC. MURIC should ask the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the then Attorney General of the Federation what stopped them from appealing the so-called “everlasting immunity to a former governor”. Did the rule of law stop the EFCC from appealing? Did it stop the trial of “a dictator’s son”? If the Government have realised that the criminal justice system is no longer fit for purpose, they have the prerogative to intervene by law, not by subterfuge or intimidation.
   

The importance of the rule of law in a democratic setting cannot be overemphasised: it is the rule of law that made it possible for the sitting President who was defeated in the last election to hand over to the present government; it is the rule of law that ensured that a new government is in place by means of a smooth process; it is the rule of law that makes it possible for those who plundered the public treasury to be punished; and, importantly, it is the same rule of law that prescribes the processes and competences for punishing offenders and governing the Nigerian State. Failure to adhere to the prescribed processes and competences will only jeopardize the fight against corruption; it will provide excuses for nations that are hosting looted funds and applying them to their economic benefits, not to repatriate the funds to, or extradite offenders to Nigeria. If as MURIC advocates, the executive takes over the competence of the judiciary, the Nigerian criminal justice system would overtly be portrayed to the whole world as one in which domestic remedies guaranteeing fair criminals trial are grossly lacking. Having decided to charge the accused persons to court as against trial by ordeal, prosecution as against persecution, the government should be encouraged to follow through with the processes and challenges of fair trials by affording the courts the benefits of judicial independence.

Interestingly, MURIC hastily made reference to Guantanamo Bay without appreciating the fact that beyond detaining accused persons indefinitely and engendering resentment towards the U.S, the Bay hardly achieved any useful purpose. MURIC failed to state that the Bay is not located on U.S soil and that the activities that occurred at the Bay could not have been possible if it was on U.S soil. They failed to point to any law in Nigeria that empowers the executive to wilfully refuse to release an accused person who has been properly admitted to bail by a competent court. It should interest MURIC to know that of the 780 individuals that were detained at the Bay, more than 80% were released without charge at great integrity and financial costs to the US. Is that the path MURIC wants the Buhari government to tread? We suppose not! Perhaps, now is the opportune time for MURIC to request the Nigerian government to acquire Guantanamo Bay from the U.S for the purpose of detaining Nigerians, since the U.S no longer has much need of it. Today, it is looters; it serves them right, we may all say. What about tomorrow? Will it not be the perceived enemies of the government?  Give overzealous government agents an inch of human rights violation, they take a mile.         

The rule of law does not only restrain the wicked, it guides the righteous away from falling into temptation and thereby stepping into the snare of the wicked. President Buhari must therefore allow himself to be properly guided by the rule of law, not only in the fight against corruption, but in every of his conduct as the popularly elected President of our great nation, the Federal Republic of Nigeria.    

The fight against corruption and all forms of criminality is a collective fight to which all Nigerians should and must be committed, may the anti-rule of law advocates not divide us.

Dr. Amos Enabulele,

Chair, CJHR

New Year Message

Human right is our right. We must demand it, appropriate it and commit to enforce it, irrespective of the status, religious beliefs, political views or affiliations, or the race of the victim; and irrespective of the status or official position of the violator. As nations take drastic measures to protect themselves and secure the lives and properties of their citizens from the ever growing and ever evolving threat of terrorism, the tendency to trade off human rights for state measures has risen over time and would rise even greater in 2016. We must all be vigilant and by our perpetual vigilance, make human rights trade off a costly path to tread. When we secure the right of one, we secure the rights of all!

Happy New Year