(Intersociety: Onitsha Nigeria, 26th of
September 2016)-It shocks and alarms us on
continuous basis concerning orchestrated and systematic stigmatization and
criminalization of the citizens’ rights to freedom of association, expression,
movement, personal liberty and fair hearing by the Nigerian Security Forces and
unprofessional print media; particularly since the inception of the Government
of Gen Muhammadu Buhari. Despite the enshrinement of these fundamental human
rights and their justiciability (S.46), on
account of their containment in Sections 40, 39, 41, 35 and 36 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended in 2011; they
have suffered gross brutalization and bastardization in the hands of the
Security Forces and unprofessional print media.
Apart from the
above constitutional guarantees and protections in the 1999 Constitution, they
are also fully recognized by the African
Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights of 1981 (ACHPR), the UN Covenant on
Civil & Political Rights of 1976 (ICCPR) as well as the Basic Standard of International Law
& Humanitarian Principles of the United Nations; a driving force of the Principles and Purposes of the United
Nations. The latter not only recognize the rights of the citizens of the
Member-States of the UN including Nigeria, to peaceful assemblies and
expressions, but also outline ways through which their exercises shall be
managed or responded to by security forces. As all are aware, Nigeria ratified ICCPR in
1993 and ratified and domesticated the ACHPR in 1983. Nigeria is also bound
morally and legally by the Fundamental
Rules of the United Nations including the
basic standard of International Law and Humanitarian Principles as well as the Purposes and Purposes of the United
Nations.
For instance, under the ten
basic standards of international law made mandatory for security forces of
Member-States of the UN for the management of civil assemblies and free
speeches as well as arrest, detention and prosecution of citizens accused of
commission of municipal crimes of whatever code definition; following key
directives are provided: (1) treat all
victims of crime with compassion and respect, and in particular protect their
safety and privacy; (2) avoid using force when policing unlawful
but nonviolent assemblies; (3) when dispersing violent assemblies, use force
only to the minimum extent necessary (i.e. in line with proportionate use of
force and avoidance of application of excessive force on non-military
necessity).
Others are (4) arrest no person unless there are
legal wounds to do so and ensure
that the arrest is carried out in accordance with lawful arrest procedures; (5)
ensure that all detainees have access, promptly after arrest to their families
and legal representatives and to any necessary medical assistance; (6) all
detainees must be treated humanly and humanely and avoid infliction,
instigation or toleration of any act of torture in any circumstance and refuse
to obey order to do so; (7) do not carry out, order or cover up extrajudicial
executions or disappearances of the
arrested or the detained and refuse to
obey any order to do so; (8) etc.
Sadly, these
sacred international rules and obligations and their sister provisions in the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended in 2011; are
not only observed in gross breach by the security forces and unprofessional
print media in Nigeria but have also faced systematic patterns of
stigmatization and criminalization to the extent they are now classified as military
necessity, warranting militarized and violent responses or actions
including mass murder or massacre of proponents of peaceful assemblies and free
speeches and injuring of others.
Others are:
unjust arrest and detention of unarmed and innocent citizens without trial;
indiscriminate pre-trial or custodial killings, torture and disappearances. Today, the Nigerian
Security Forces, fully backed by a presidential death code issued by President
Muhammadu Buhari; erroneously and mischievously tagged: rules of engagement of the Nigerian Armed Forces; place high
security priority on peaceful assemblies and free speeches than the activities
of terrorist organizations or violent armed opposition groups like Boko Haram
and Fulani Janjaweed (Herdsmen).
As a matter of fact, the Buhari
Administration does not consider the violent activities of the Fulani Janjaweed,
which lead to massacre of hundreds of unarmed and innocent Nigerians almost on
weekly bsis as a public security threat requiring military actions under the UN’s
Rules of Engagement or the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Four Protocols
of 1977.
The most abominable and unforgiving
of it all is the Nigerian Security Forces deliberate application or use of war-time military approaches or
methodologies in managing civil assemblies and democratic free speeches. For
the purpose of setting the records straight, civil or peaceful assemblies and free speeches, no matter their
intents, are purely non-military or non-war or nonviolent affairs or conducts
and are totally devoid of military
necessity, warranting State violent approaches or use of force, not to talk
of excessive application of State force or violence.
That is to say that the Rules
of Engagement of the UN and International Law recognition and
definition are strictly applied in war or
conflict situations. Just like we have severally educated publicly, the Rules
of Engagement, which are presently corrupted and bastardized by the
Nigerian Armed Forces (including the Army, Police, DSS, Navy, etc), are strictly
applicable in international or internal
armed conflict; otherwise referred to as complex humanitarian emergencies.
Key features of the internationally
standardized Rules of Engagement, strictly
applied in war or conflict situations are (1) legitimate use of force, (2) proportionality of use of force, (3)
legitimate self defense, (4) treatment of prisoners of war or conflict, (5)
avoidance of attacks on non-military necessity or civilian targets or
properties, (6) avoidance of attacks on civilians or non-combatants, (7)
treatment of the wounded, (8) avoidance of attacks on culture symbols or places
of worship, (9) avoidance of attacks on humanitarian agencies and personnel/human
rights activists; (10) treatment of other peoples of the war (i.e. spies and
journalists).
The Rules of Engagement are the integral part of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Four
Protocols of 1977; and originally came from the three war doctrines of Jus Ad
Bellum (justification and
ground for going to war); Jus In Bellum (ethical rules of
conduct during war, such as ethical standards expected of soldiers in wartime
or rules
of engagement); and Jus Post Bellum (regulations on how
wars are ended and facilitation of transition from war to peace).
Another name for the Rules of Engagement is the Standard Rules for the People of the War.
The People of the War here literally means parties in the conflict
who occupy the conflict areas such as fighting parties, non-combatants or
civilians as well as other third parties playing direct or indirect roles in
the conflict.
In all, non-war civil conducts such
as civil or peaceful assemblies and democratic free speeches have nothing whatsoever
to do with the so called Rules of Engagement of the Nigerian Armed
Forces neither do they have any to do with the UN and International Law’s
standardized Rules of Engagement. In
managing civil assemblies and democratic free speeches for whatever intents,
use of military actions including mass shooting and wounding of protesters and
militarization of the protesting entities are out-rightly and inexcusably
forbidden.
Such civil assemblies and free
speeches even if they turn non-lethally violent are managed under UN System or
within the confines of international best practices using modern non-lethal
crowd control instruments or devices such as tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, electric tasers, batons, whips,
water cannons, long range acoustic devices, aerial surveillance, police dogs,
etc; which are aided by body
protective devices such as anti crowd
helmets, face visors, body armor (i.e. vests, neck protectors, knee pads, etc),
gas masks and anti crowd shields?
This special human rights education or public awareness on management of
civil or peaceful assemblies and free speeches in Nigeria is extremely
necessary so as to educate, expose and condemn the intensified stigmatization
and criminalization of same by Nigerian Security Forces and unprofessional
print media. The stigmatization and criminalization under reference are done
deliberately and systematically by the security forces as a justification for
committing the highlighted conduct atrocities which amount to crimes against
humanity (i.e. State crimes or regime atrocities committed against unarmed and
innocent citizens in peacetime or in non-war situations). Unprofessionalism or
media corruption or both are chiefly suspected as the brain behind print media’s
conspiracy in stigmatizing and criminalizing civil or peaceful assemblies and
free speeches in Nigeria.
The Nigerian Security Forces
particularly the Nigerian Army, Nigeria Police Force and the DSS have steadily
or systematically stigmatized and criminalized Pro Biafra agitations in
Nigeria. Apart from official nonviolence stance declared by the leadership of
the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), totality of our advocacy investigations
particularly in the Southeast and the South-south of Nigeria as they relate to
IPOB agitation matches, rallies and processions, has not, till date, found the
group engaging in violent and other traditional crime conducts such as looting,
car-jacking, abduction/kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion, sexual harassment,
house breaking or stealing during or after its street or in-door protests.
We have also not found IPOB as a
group using or advocating violence as a method in its self determination
agitation for the status of its Biafra Land through national or international
referenda. Till date, the group is not traced to any form of armed rebellion or
insurrection or armed uprising in Nigeria or any part thereof. Where pockets of
breaches are recorded during its public peacefully intended protests, such
happened on account of State provocation through use of massive State violence
or expression of anger for mass murder and other mass shooting of its unarmed
and defenseless members by security forces particularly the Nigerian Army.
The stigmatization and
criminalization of the IPOB peaceful and lawful agitation and free speeches
have thickened in recent months particularly in the press conferences and other
public statements issued by the Nigerian Army, Nigeria Police Force and the
DSS. IPOB has in several of these publications been classified as “militant
group”, “terrorist group” or “armed Independent People of Biafra (A-IPOB)”. At
the other time, the group was tagged “insurrectionist group”.
Apart from these criminal labeling,
the Police, DSS and the Army have gone further to clamp down on its members and
sympathizers and treat them as “terrorist suspects”; clamping and detaining
them for months without trial. In the course of all these, the provisions of
the 1999 Constitution are breached with reckless abandon. Comrade Chidiebere
Onwudiwe, for instance, has been detained incommunicado as a “terrorist” for 94
days without trial or administrative bail, having been arrested, according to
the official statement of the DSS, on 22nd June 2016.
By the express provision of Section
35 (4) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, Comrade Chidiebere Onwudiwe is no longer triable, having been held incommunicado
or without administrative or court bail for over two months or 60 days. He is
also not triable having been held in
DSS custody for over 90days without bail and trial. This is contrary to Section
35 (4) (b) of the Constitution. We call on the Attorney General of the Federation
to take note!
The Nigerian Security Forces also
routinely torture their detained IPOB activists for the purpose of forcing them
into admitting being “terrorists” when not even fireworks were found on them.
They routinely raid their residences in the dead of the night, shoot and arrest
them and take them away without informing them of crimes under which they were
arrested. The security forces also compile lists of unarmed and defenseless
members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and put them in their wanted
list. IPOB activists arrested and detained are also made victims of jungle
justice or trial-by-ordeal.
The unprofessional print media, on
their part, have steadily stigmatized and criminalized the IPOB nonviolent
protests. Even when such protests are sit-at-home, the print media must find a
way of stigmatizing and criminalizing same. The Vanguard and the Sun Newspapers
news reports of Saturday, September 24, 2016 on IPOB organized sit-at-home
protest in the Southeast and the South-south of Nigeria per their Saturday
Editors; are a clear case in point.
For instance, apart from attempts to
create a false public impression of “failure” of the sit-at-home protest, the
editors further claimed that “that those who stayed away did so because of
fears of being attacked by IPOB”; thereby labeling IPOB a violent group or an
armed uprising group.
At Intersociety, we got surprise
calls from some journalists on Friday, 22nd September 2016 (day of
IPOB organized sit-at-home protest) asking us “how many trailers were burnt in
Onitsha”. This is when it is clear to them that the protest was sit-at-home and
not street protest. Which explains our position that “the stigmatization and
criminalization of peaceful assemblies and free speeches (i.e. IPOB led protests)
by the print media are borne out of unprofessionalism or media corruption or
both”.
We condemn in its entirety the
stigmatization and criminalization of civil and nonviolent protests and
democratic free speeches in Nigeria. The conspiracy of the print media in the
conduct atrocities is further condemned. We call on all Nigerians and members
of the international community to take advocacy notice of this special
publication and stand up at all times against stigmatization and
criminalization of civil assemblies and free speeches by the Nigerian Armed
Forces and their unprofessional print media collaborators. Rights to freedom of
association, expression, movement, fair hearing and personal liberty, which are
locally and internationally recognized and entrenched, must be defended and
upheld by all and sundry at all times.
Signed:
Emeka Umeagbalasi, B.Sc., Criminology & Security
Studies; M.Sc. (c), Peace & Conflict Studies
Board Chairman, International Society for Civil
Liberties & the Rule of Law-INTERSOCIETY
Mobile Line: +2348174090052
Email: info@intersociety-ng.org
Website: www.intersociety-ng.org
Obianuju Igboeli, Esq., LLB, BL; LLM (c)
Head, Civil Liberties & Rule of Law Program
Mobile Line: +2348034186332
Chinwe Umeche, Esq., LLB, BL
Mobile Line: +2347013238673
Head, Democracy & Good Governance Program
Post A Comment:
0 comments: