Human Rights In Nigeria: Challenges And Developments

The bastion of human rights is that every man is free, and is entitled to hold certain inalienable rights, guaranteed and non-negotiable. The law goes as far as imposing this right with a fail-safe stateliness that makes the holder of such right incapable of waiving them. Sir. Alfred Denning, giving an illustration of such security surrounding human rights, retold the story of a man and his liberty, which extends even to how he used his property, regardless of his status in society. He wrote: 

 "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

Accordingly, this article will, with the aid of history, enunciate the major development of human rights in Nigeria, the challenges that beguile it and aptly, reconcile these challenges with contemporary solutions that play to the tenor of our time.

Development and Challenges 

In 1960, Nigeria gained her independence in an event called the "Wind of Change", which encompassed Africa. In October of the preceding year, the Bill of Rights was included as a determinant for granting independence; after Britain had initially rejected the call for Independence in 1953.

The Bill of Rights had the objective of assuaging the apprehension of the minorities who were certain that an independent Nigeria meant domination by the majority. British government realized this when an inquiry made by the Minorities Commission Report 1958 submitted such a recommendation. 

The Bill domesticated in Nigeria provided the first provision of human rights in the country. 

Consequently, this Bill was incorporated as Chapter III of the Independence Constitution (1960) guaranteeing the rights of Nigerians regardless of their status. Yet, this chapter, while stating provisions and detailing exceptions, was inflexible and could not evolve to meet both the changing times and the community it was admitted to as a municipal law.

The Parliament had enormous power, ludicrously bogus that it could derogate the rights of individuals and a group at large for public safety. This was both political and pugilistic. Section 65 of the 1960 Constitution granted the Parliament power to call for a state of emergency empowered by two-thirds of the house and with the notion that democratic institutions would be subverted if such a declaration was not made. The Supreme Court in WILLIAMS V. MAJEKODUNMI (No.1) (1962) 2 SCNLR P.26. held that it was within the vires of the Parliament to declare a state of emergency and they were in no wrong if the declaration derogated the rights of others. Notably, the Court said it will not interfere but will determine whether the emergency measures were within justifiable bounds. Politically motivated moves were spun to suppress opposition through this means.

The Republican Constitution (1963) came into being primarily to consolidate Nigeria as a sovereign nation no longer having the Queen of England as the Head of State. The Constitution did little concerning the development of human rights. However, the inflexibility of the primordial Bill of Rights, although now fully entrenched in the Constitution, began to rear its fetid head. Crisis and riots erupted, and then a coup in 1966 ushered in the Military rule that pervaded the nation. In LAKANMI V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF WESTERN REGION (1970) SC.58/69, the Supreme Court contesting the powers of the Military Government held that the promulgation of Decrees and Edicts were contrary to the 1963 Constitution and thus null. The military rule response overturned the precedent overnight while restricting the rights of individuals and the Court. The military rule in Nigeria is reckoned with gross abuse of power, brutality, and extreme suppression.

The Presidential Constitution (1979) was the most innovative constitution we have had as a nation. Its expansion of human rights saw the inclusion of socioeconomic rights although not justiciable, the introduction of the Fundamental Right Enforcement (Procedure)Rule,1979. 

These socioeconomic rights were derivatives of the social movements of the 70s and 80s that saw countries promulgate laws that were for social and economic development. 

India, for example, where our 'Fundamental Objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy' chapter was replicated, was in their socialist era, and those provisions were to be the dividends of democracy where the governments held a duty to provide major amenities and a reasonable standard of living which also included the reduction of poverty. In Nigeria, these provisions were skeletal; no means to breathe them into life through the rigor of litigation.

The Fundamental Rights Enforcement (Procedure) Rules 1979, being a breakthrough, meant that a procedure for instituting the infringement of fundamental rights was put in place. This implied that time was saved and technicalities surrounding the enforcement of Fundamental Rights were ousted. The Court speaking on the temerity of the FREP Rule held in ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY, ATURU v. ANYAIBE  (1996) 3 NWLR (pt. 439) 646 that the FREP Rule shall have the same force in power as the Chapter IV of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Land Use Decree promulgated the previous year had lands unjustly annexed due to a provision in the Decree that allowed the government to usurp lands where an overriding public reason emerged. Compensation was not given, and where they were given, it was not commensurate to the value of the land.

In between the second republic and fourth republic, draconic military governments emerged with few respite. The death of Dele Giwa, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the other 9, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, and various others, was a testament to the dark ages of human rights in Nigeria. 

From 1999 till date, the human rights story in Nigeria, despite improving, has not met global standards, especially in the area of discrimination and the death penalty. The 1999 Constitution, which is en route to the third decade, is still outdated; the various amendments fall short of the development Nigerians need. A branch of tokenism has arisen amongst the political class who proclaim, "The worse democratic rule is better than the best military regime", and with this dogma, they continue to restrict the rights of Nigerians unabated.

Human rights are inalienable; they are not rights bestowed by governments. They arise from the nature of our personhood. It is deeply saddening that Nigerians have gone through so much trauma and might scarcely know what greater freedom entails. However, it is the duty of those who know that the layman deserves better— should be safeguarded by the law— to fight for such actualization. So help us, God.

Solutions

1.) Liberal Interpretation: The rights in Chapter IV should be interpreted broadly to admit scenarios not envisaged when the provisions were enacted. Human rights continue to grow; it is only reasonable that when the lyrical provision cannot be enacted frequently, the judicial interpretation should fill the gap.

2.) Judicial Precedent vs. Judicial Succedent: Whole precedent is an immutable foundation of our legal jurisprudence; there should be cases where Justices, for the sake of the evolution of law, make decisions that are groundbreaking. Judges are also seers, their discretionary power should also be aided with foresight so that before the need arises for the protection of the rights of individuals, such pronouncements are already in place.

3.) Enforcement of Judgement: Judgement debts and compensations for the infringement of the rights of a person should be enforced. Most often, judgments entered against the police or any other force are usually not complied with. Thus, there should be a means for these judgments to be enforced.

4.) Mass Sensitization: The populace should be sensitized to the various rights they have. Mass outreaches, public teachings, pro-bono legal services and any means employable to bring this common knowledge to the people.

Conclusion.

Human rights are universal, they should be obtainable everywhere. These rights more than the freedom they bestow on us, should include the rights predominantly socio-economical that see that everyone has a quality of life that is beyond average. From the French Revolution to today's society, we have come to understand that the stability of any country is predicated upon the sustenance of its citizens, including the rights owed to them.