We sure sey una sabi di right to freedom of movement, di right to dignity, di right to fair hearing and di oda ones wey dem call the fundamental human rights which dem put for Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution. Na all dis rights dey enforceable in Court and as we don talk am for we posts, you fit approach the High Court of a State, as e dey under Section 46 of the Constitution, and di Federal High Court, as dem talk am for the case of FUTMINNA v Olutayo (wey di Court relied on the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules)

But di mata neva finish.. di right wey we get as pesin no end for just civil and political rights. We get di right to education, good health care, access to gainful employment and adequate means of livelihood, housing, good standard of living and many more. All dis rights wey we mention dey under socio-economic rights. The problem no be sey dis rights no dey for we 1999 Constitution. As it be so, dem dey under Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution but we no fit enforce dem. Why? Because Section 6(6)(c) don mek that Chapter 2 wey dem put dis rights non-justiciable. Dis be sey Nigerian courts no fit adjudicate on mata wey concern dem. If pesin carry di mata go court, di Court go strike am out. My pipu, what we go take pen wey no get ink do. Abi, phone wey no get battery.

     Options to Judicial Enforcements

Authors wey write on di enforcement of socio-economic rights don talk about the ways we fit enforce dem. First, we fit enforce am by using the fundamental human rights wey dey for Chapter 4 of di 1999 Constitution. For example, we enforce di right to good standard of living and good environment, wey be socio-economic rights, by using di right to dignity abi di right to life.

Secondly, we fit enforce am by using di provisions of already ratified international instruments like African Charter on Human and People’s Right  before Nigerian Courts or regional courts. For example, we fit enforce di right to education under di provision of di African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. In Festus Odafe & Ors v Attorney General of the Federation and 3 others, Suit No.FHC/PH/CS/680/2003, di Federal High Court mandate di federal government by Article 16(2) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights mek dem provide medical care to four prisoners we dey HIV positive. In SERAP v Nigeria & Ors, SERAP wey be a civil society organisation carry the President of Naija and other pipu go ECOWAS Community Court and talk am sey dem violates some socio-economic rights like right to adequate standard of living, right to health, to food, to clean and healthy environment for certain part of Niger Delta. Dem con rely on African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Di Court talk am sey him get jurisdiction to entertain di mata because Naija be member nation of Economic Community of West Africa State (ECOWAS).

Third, di federal government fit “give expression” to dis socio-economic rights wey dey under Chapter 2 pursuant to Item 60, Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (exclusive legislative list). By “giving expression”, we mean sey dem go mek legislations we protect for dis rights.  Dem don do dis for di enactment of di Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Act (for free education) and the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act (to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power puruant to Section 15). In Attorney-General of Ondo State v Attorney-General of the Federation, Uwais (CJN, as he was then) talk am sey di enactment of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act which establishes di ICPC and give dem power to enforce section 15 (5) of the Constitution dey valid and to say him no dey na to leave the ICPC with no authority. However, government still dey avoid dem responsibilities under dis legislations by saying dat di different socio-economic rights which dem protect no dey justiciable under 1999 Constitution.

All these na solutions to di problem of enforcing dis socio-economic rights in Nigeria but my pipu, it no be The Solution. True sey Nigeria don ratify the African Charter on Human and People’s Right under section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. Di issue be sey sections wey pesin fit use enforce di right to education, for instance, dey contrary to di provisions of di Constitution we mek dem unenforceable. In essence, those sections for African Charter on Human and People’s Right dey inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. The result be sey e go be void to the extent of its inconsistency. Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution talk am sey if any law dey inconsistent with di Constitution, di Constitution go prevail and dat law go be void to di extent of its inconsistency. Even with di international flavour wey African Charter on Human and People’s Right get, the court for Abacha and others v Fawehinmi talk am sey e no superior to the Constitution and National Assembly fit remove am from we body of laws by repealing Cap. 10

                  The Way Forward

Di sure bet to di enforcement of dis socio-economic rights be constitutional ammendment to make justiciable di provisions of Chapter 2 of the Constitution. In our present Nigeria wey majority know poverty, dey suffer from bad health system and poor standard of living, the justiciability of Chapter 2 dey very important. In fact, it no too much to say pikin wey still dey for dem mama’s bele know sey things hard for Naija. The justiciability of these socio-economic rights be a way of making we government sit up and accountable.

One concern be sey if dem make dis rights justiciable and enforceable, it fit open floodgate of cases against di government in di absence of adequate resources wey dem fit use cater for di growing population. On dis mata, the Constitutional Court for South Africa in Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom use the concept of reasonableness and talk sey dem go see if the measures govament adopted dey reasonable to meet dem obligations. Aside di test of reasonableness, we also get di minimum core threshold wey we fit use determine whether the govament dey work to provide for dis rights. This be sey govament don make effort to use di available resources to satisfy dis minimum obligations on priority basis.

In all, constitutional ammendment to mek justiciable all di socio-economic rights wey dey for Chapter 2 of we 1999 Constitution go sweet. But in di absence of dis ammendment, as e be now, the Court still fit decide cases on dis mata if pesin institute am in one of di ways we don discuss above. Mek we just quickly put am down sey di absence of impediments in di enforcement of dis socio-economic rights na di beginning of we govament accountability and beta life for we pipu of Naija.

My pipu, no forget comment, like and share dis post.

Na all of us dey see the clear images and videos of alleged brutality and killings by the people wey we call security forces for dis our Nigeria. Na why we think am wise to revisit di issue of extrajudicial killings and di fundamental right to life wey we get as citizens of Nigeria. As we sabi, extrajudicial killing or extra judicial execution na di bad act of killing without a trial or outside of di legal process. Dis bad behavior na wetin all of us dey cry #EndSARS and other slogans for. To start, wetin our laws talk about right to life sef?

Wetin Right to Life mean for dis we Countri?
Dis life wey we dey no get duplicate. E no be car wey get duplicate key and e no get promo of buy one, get one free. Hence, life na sacred thing wey we suppose dey treasure and protect. As some people put am, na existence come before essence: na person wey dey exist go get essence of life and that essence go terminate when existence no dey. Na onto this reason countries, plus including Nigeria, dey jealously guard the right to life under dia laws.

Section 33 of di 1999 Naija Constitution talk am sey every person get right to life. E no matter di gender, circumstance of birth or any reason sef, you get di constitutional right to life. Dis Section 33 further talk am say nobodi fit intentionally deprive you of dis right to life unless say na thru execution of a court sentence wey find you guilty of a criminal offence.
As we see sef for judicially decided cases like Nasiru Bello v. A.G Oyo State, di execution of a convicted pesin wey still dey appeal him case for a higher court na deprivation of di pesin right to life. For dis case where dem execute person wey still dey appeal case, di Supreme Court of Nigeria order say make dem pay compensation to di family of the deceased.

In fact, oda international treaties wey Nigeria don sign stand gidigba behind di protection of dis sacred and treasured right to life. Article 4 of di African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) 1981 put am down sey:

• Human beings dey inviolable,
• Evri human being dey entitled to respect for him life and integrity of him pesin, and
• Nobodi fit arbitrarily deprive you of dis right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 sef gather put mouth for di guarantee of dis right to life for Article 3.

Which kain limit dis Right to Life get?
However, as di protection of dis right sweet pass, e get small limit. Section 33(2) of our Constitution talk am say it no fit be deprivation of di right of life wia pesin die because of di use of force to such extent and in such a circumstance wia di law permits as it dey reasonably necessary. Dis situations include:

• For di defence of pesin from unlawful violence or defence of property,
• To effect lawful arrest or prevent di escape of pesin wey dey lawfully detained, and,
• To suppress a riot, insurrection, or mutiny.

Disproportionate use of power/force by Security Forces for we Contri
The duty wey dem give security forces na to protect lives, properties, territorial integrity, other things wey relate. Their power no include to dey rob citizens of dia property or terrorize or kill people wey dem suppose dey protect.

However, for dis we country, many people don witness and suffer di brutality of security forces, especially as e concern extrajudicial killings wit di use of disproportionate force. Dis one dey against di law as e dey for Section 33(2) of our Constitution (we don talk about am above). E get one time wey some policemen including members of Anti-Robbery Team set up illegal roadblock/checkpoint come killed some people because dem no gree give dem bribe upon demand. Na wetin happen for di case of Omonyahuy v. IGP (2015) be dis. Plenty plenty cases dey like dis for court plus including the ones wey no dey court. Life no come dey sacred or treasured for the hands of security forces especially Nigerian Police Force. In fact, as BBC sef report am for April, 2020, Naija security forces don kill more people than Coronavirus sef!!!

When Police or security officer suppose use gun sef?
Di Revised Police Force Order 237 don put down guidelines for di use of firearms and lethal force by di Nigeria Police Force (NPF). For dis guideline, only time wey police fit use fire arm na when:

• Dem attack am or dia be imminent threat say dem go injure am seriously or kill am. Even for dis, the police must to make sure say no other means dey to save him life,
• Police dey protect person wey dey under attack and di police officer believe on proportional grounds say he not fit protect the person unless he use weapon,
• E dey necessary to disperse violent assemblies and wia dem be imminent threat of death and serious injury. For dis situation, di police must to make sure say less extreme measures go dey insufficient,
• Di police officer wan arrest person wey wan escape to avoid arrest. For dis matter, di escape must be one wey fit pose threat of imminent death or injury to di police officer or innocent people. Di matter must also be for offence wey be serious crime involving imminent death or injury. The police must however don try all other means to arrest di person.

Di situations wey Police or security officer must not use gun or other arm
No matter how e be, a police, soldier, or other security person no fit and no get power to use firearm, lethal force or potential lethal force wia:

• Alternative dey wey fit eliminate imminent death or serious injury and acheive same purpose at no risk to di officer or innocent people,
• Firearm is used for warning shots to seek assistance, give signals or warn a fleeing fellow to stop,
• Gun go dey fired at or from inside vehicles,
• The gun dey pointed at plenty people.

E go make sense for our security officers to remember di laws of commandment in Revised Order 237 before dem pull di trigger anyhow. Remember. Think and think am again because our laws for dis contri go hold you responsible for di reckless behaviour.

As di Criminal Code Act put am down for Section 306, e dey unlawful for any person to kill another person unless say such killing dey authorized, justified or excused by law. Section 315 of same law talk am say anybodi wey kill anoda don commit murder or manslaughter be dat. Na wetin di Penal Code sef talk be dis.

How you wan enforce your Right to Life?
Karibi-Whyte JSC talk am for Nasiru Bello v. A.G Oyo State say anybodi wey get interest in the continued existence of person wey dem kill unjustly fit bring an action to enforce dis right. Of course, dis na because person wey don die no fit enforce him own right. Plenty cases dey wey other people don go court to enforce di right of person wey dem kill unjustly. Some of dem include Mrs. Ganiat Amope Dilly v. IGP (2016) LCN/9321 (CA); NPF & ors v. Omotosho & Ors (2018) LPELR-45778 (CA); Omonyahuy v. IGP (2015) LPELR 25581 (CA) and so on.

Now, the matter on ground be say make government cancel or disband dis SARS wey people dey cry say dem dey kill people anyhow. Beyond SARS matter however, our govenment suppose get zero tolerance for extra judicial killings. Our right to life as people dey sacred and time don reach for us make we hold our security forces accountable for evri unlawful and legally unjustified killing wey don kill children papa or mama, or wey don make some of us no get pikin again. Dis matter don throwey many of us into sadness because of di untimely death of people wey we hold dearly.

Na why we join body with other well-meaning people of dis our contri to say NO MORE EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS! #EndPoliceBrutality! #OurRightToLifeMatters!

For some of us wey no know before, na today we go know: no be only Court get power to judge mata. Mata plenty so té e no fit possible make the court dey decide all of them. Na why Section 36 of our Constitution don give some other agencies power to judge some other matter. Dis agencies dem include investigative panel, military tribunal, statutory tribunal, and domestic or autonomous bodies. Etc.

But e get one rule wey apply to court and these other agencies dem… all of dem must to apply the rule of ‘fair hearing’. If you check Section 36(1) of our Consitution, dem talk am for there say: Every pesin must get fair hearing within reasonable time by a court or other tribunal wey law establish and which dem constitute in a way wey go secure dia independence and impartiality, in di determination of his civil rights and obligations.

The court sef join mouth talk am for di polular cases of LPDC v. Gani Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 7) 300 and Denloye v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee   (1968) 1 ANLR 306 at 320 sey any tribunal or administrative body wey dey perform judicial or quasi-judicial power to decide anybodi mata must do fair hearing.

Wetin sef be dis fair hearing?

The straight tori of ‘fair hearing’ be say for anybodi wey wan judge mata, make e do am make everything balance. If we break am down, e mean say:

a) Hear di other side:

For law, dem dey call dis ‘audi alteram partem’. Wetin e mean be say make anybodi wey wan judge matter hear wetin all the people wey the mata concern wan talk.

That is to say, di person wey dey bring petition and di person dem bring am against….all of dem must talk. Di tribunal or di administrative body must don give evribodi adequate notice to prepare im case.

Na dis one mek di supreme court for di case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) All N.L.R. 149 state di significance of notice for fair hearing say:

i. Pesin must know di allegations against wey dem bring against am,

ii. Pesin must know di evidence wey support di allegations,

iii. Pesin must get fair opportunity to correct and counter di allegations,

iv. Di people wey dey investigate di charge must not receive evidence behind di pesin back.

b) No act as judge for your own case

Na ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ dem lawyers dey call this one. Dis bi sey pesin wey get personal interest or likelihood of bias for inside mata no fit be di judge. As court talk for Chiekwe Ikwunze Esiaga v. University of Calabar & 2 ors. (2004) 7 NWLR (pt. 872) 366, dis fit happen under three situations:

● Wia di judge get financial interest for di mata,

● Wia di judge get special or personal relationship with any of di party for di mata, or

● Wia the judge don show obvious hate for di fact of di case and no go fit suppress am.

Di big gist of this fair hearing as one Oga Justice talk am be say: “Not only must justice be done, it should also be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”.

Wetin go come happen if fair hearing no dey for di mata?

E no go shock you if we tell you say administrative tribunals or authorities dey throwey dis fair hearing well well. Abi why dem go punish student for Student Disciplinary Committee for school when dem no even allow am talk pim or défend hinself? In some mata sef, di pesin wey bring case against anoda for professional misconduct sef go sit as one of di members of di adjudicating panel. O wrong nau!

If any of dis happen, na wetin go happen be dis. Di issue of fair hearing be like dat of jurisdiction. Di decision of the people wey decide di mata no fit stand, and the case go scatter.

As di Court talk for Adigun v. A.G Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.53)678, di right to fair hearing na fundamental constitutional right, so therefore, any breach of it whether for trial, investigation or inquiry nullifies di trial, investigation or inquiry and action wey dem take on them.

No dulling on your rights o.

Fair hearing na your right. If dem decide your mata for anywhere, and you feel say dem don violate your right to fair hearing, you no get anything to fear. You fit carry di case go di High Court of the State as it be under Section 46 of our Constitution.

You also fit approach di Federal High Court as it be for Fundamental Rights (enforcement procedures) Rules 2009 and as Kudirat Kekere-Ekun J.S.C talk am for di case of FUTMINNA v Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176

My pipu na for hia we go drop pen. Abeg LIKE, SHARE and follow us on Twitter @LAWGin_ng

As social media be today, before you browse for one hour (that one sef long), you go don see person wey go post one thing wey go vex you. If the football club wey you dey support lose one match now, e go be like mek you block the internet of the people wey go use you laugh. That thing dey pain. But na just small example be dat.

If some people open mouth talk, e go be like make you tell dem say dem go suffer for 600 years. But if you come look am, the thing be say as some people talk some things wey no sweet you for belle, na hin you sef dey talk some things wey be like bitterleaf for some people belle too. Calm down.

You see, part of the rights wey you get as per citizen of Naija na one wey dem call Freedom of Expression. Plenty people dey think say this right only mean say nobody fit hold ya mouth and you fit TALK YOUR TALK! Di right pass wetin you think o. For our Naija constitution, Section 39 wey cover the freedom of expression talk sey you get right:

❖ To hold opinion, plus including to right to receive and impart knowledge/information without interference;

❖ To own, establish plus operate any platform wey you go dey use to share information, idea or opinion;

Ofcourse, if you wan operate television or wireless broadcasting, you go need to first get go-ahead from the relevant authority wey govment don put in charge.

As dis right be so, na one of di backbone wey dey very very important to democracy. If this right no dey, how citizens wan take talk the thing wey dey pain dem? How journalist, bloggers, and pressmen wan take operate freely without interference? You don understand?

Talk your talk but no too talk pass your mouth

How we go say make you no talk pass your mouth when we don already tell you say fit talk your talk? Evrithing na hin get limit. You get mouth no be for sey make you come dey talk things wey go cause harm to another person. For law of Tort, e get one thing wey dem call “defamation”. This one mean sey na offence for any words:

● Wey you write or talk wey fit affect the reputation or business of person, or

● Wey be say people wey hear or read am go hate or ridicule the person, whether you talk or write am directly abi you put am for proverb.

For this defamation, na two pikin e get. Di one wey dey in written form na ‘Libel’ and di one wey dem talk na ‘Slander’. This jam-talk as e be so, e fit be criminal offence as dem put am for Section 373 Criminal Code and Section 291 of Penal Code.

Freedom of expression and internet jam-talk

As technology don convert the traditional world to digital world, e also get im bad side. If you go run your mouth anyhow pass wetin you suppose do, na online defamation be dat. Mek we burst your bubble, any pesin wey:

● Intentionally send false message abi any false mata on the cyber space,

● Wey be say the informate fit cause hatred, enmity, criminal intimidation or make people insult anoda person….

…that person don commit crime be dat and court fit fit throwey the person for jail for not more than 3 years or fine am not more than #7,000,000.00 (or both). This law na as e be under Section 24 of the Cyber Crime (Prohibition, Prevention Etc) Act.

Calm down. You see, for all una wey don turn cyber bully abi wey don carry di title of Queen Savage and King Savage for social media platform, LIMAU, no talk sey we no tell you.

Di case of McAlpine v Bercow for UK show sey cyber bullying, internet or online defamation no be play play. For dis case, di Defendant defamed di Plaintiff, a Conservative Peer, on her twitter account by a comment implying dat he was a pedophile. Before dis, BBC report don link an unnamed “senior Conservative” politician to sex abuse claims. Two days later, di Defendant twitted “why is Lord McAlphine trending? innocent face”. Her question appeared innocent but pesin wey get knowledge of other fact go get di gist. Di Defendant was asked to pay damages.

Howeva, defences dey for allegation of defamation. If it be sey dis statement at di time of publication be di truth, be privileged, dey for public benefit or dem publish am to those wey suppose get out, e no go be defamation.

As we dey talk go, Section 45 of di Constitution put am down say some laws fit limit freedom of expression. However, the law must to dey reasonably justified in a democratic state and be in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health. The Cyber Crime (Prohibition, Prevention Etc) Act 2015 dey in di interest of public order and as such, it dey valid.

For all una wey for follow dis discussion, it get something wey talk your talk but no too talk pass your mouth go remind you. It be sey pesin right ends wia anoda pesin right begins. That is, your right to talk your talk ends wia anoda pesin right to di protection of im good name begin. In addition, section 39(3) of di Constitution of di Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 write am sey nothing go invalidate any law dat dey reasonably justified in a democratic state;

❖ For di purpose of preventing di disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining di authority and di independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films

❖ Imposing restrictions upon persons holding office unda di govament of the Federation or of a State, members of di armed forces of di Federation or members of di Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law.

Before una go get am twisted, you no get right to defame pesin without justification no be sey you no fit criticise pesin.  But, mek u no do am maliciously. Na when malice enta criticism wahala go burst. The Court in The Director of Public Prosecution v. Chike Obi (FSC 56/1961) [1961] 10 (06 APRIL 1961) talk am sey pesin fit criticise di govament abi talk about di weakness of public policy but no fit do so in a malignant manner or in a nature which go disturb public peace.

ENFORCEMENT OF DI VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Wia dem violate your right to freedom of expression, na di court you go approach. Howeva, di court wey u go approach depend on di substantive claim. Wia dem no allow you exercise your freedom of expression, you fit approach di High Court of the State. You also fit approach di Federal High Court as it be for Fundamental Rights (enforcement procedures) Rules 2009 and as Kudirat Kekere-Ekun  J.S.C talk am for FUTMINNA v Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176.

If e be sey anoda pesin talk so tè im defame u, di court you fit approach be di High Court of a State. However, wia dem bring di defamation under criminal law, na di State Prosecution go tek am up for di High Court of a State.

When Fela Anikulapo Kuti talk am for inside hin song, Beasts of No Nation, say “human rights na my property”, e get why. Evribodi na him get some human rights wey nothing or body fit carry am comot. The tori be say, fundamental human rights dey important, but some dey importanter.

The right to dignity na one of the oga patapata rights wey dey importanter. Di Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) wey be one document wey don té on human rights mata recognise di ‘follow-come’ dignity of all pesin and state. You don buy original phone wey no get follow-come charger before? Na like 5 and 6 nau. Una sabi as follow-come charger take cost for market?

Oh. No ves say I run comot for wetin we dey talk before.

As I dey talk, as follow come charger be to original phone, na so right to dignity be for every person. But….wait. Unlike follow come charger, nobody fit comot am from your package no matter wetin happen.

This right to dignity cover plenty things. E include say:

● Evribodi must to treat you with respect,

● Nobodi fit humiliate, dehumanize, or degrade you.

Torture, rape, forced labour or slavery, and plenty other yanma-yanma things dey illegal under dis right to dignity,

The UDHR document – wey we talk before – talk am for im ‘beginging’ sey the right to dignity of every person o, say nah hin be di “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. If you check the Article 1 of dis document, dem talk am say “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. For we Africa, di African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) sef join mouth for the matter come talk am for Article 5 say… so long as pesin be human being, he must to get right to respect of him dignity.

As it be for di Naija Constitution….

Dem write am wey e bold for Section 34(1) say “Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person”. Di tori wey follow subsection (1) try to explain wetin dis right be. As it be so, di right to dignity according to our Naija Constitution be sey:

● Nobodi get power to wire you with torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or

● Nobody get power to chook you for slavery or servitude, or force you to perform compulsory labour.

As we talk, any treatment wey dey below di sense of decency such as rape, torture, brutality and many more dey violate pesin right to dignity.

Wetin our courts dem talk about am….

Di question of di right to dignity follow di right to life appear for Ezekiel Adekunle v. The State. For dis case, some gwogwo people gather together stone one 70 year old woman to death unto say dem reason say di woman na witch.

If you check dis case of Mr. Johnson Owamagbe Aiwuyor v Sunday Famous Aluyi (Suit No: B/35M/2016), you go see say court vex onto dis issue of right to dignity. For dis matter, di Respondent enter di domot of di applicant, slap am for him face, make am stand on him feet and sit on bare floor. Court come rule say dis treatment of the Applicant who be school principal na violation of him right to dignity as e humiliate am before him family and friends.

For dis our kontry, once a pesin don proceed from him mama body in a living state and don get di status of  pesin, di right to dignity go automatically follow am. Na for dis reason dem call am inherent right. Plus in addition to the matter, nobodi fit deny another person enjoyment of dis right on di ground say the person na disabled person. The Vienna Convention wey Nigeria ratify for 1969 talk for the him Section 3 say “Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for their human dignity”.

Dis right include sey nobody fit dey discriminated against becos of circumstances surrounding him birth or him sex, religion, ethnicity, and political affiliation. For Onuikhemi v. Smiridu Nig Ltd, wia dem terminate person for work unto say him test positive for HIV, the court talk am sey the dismissal on dat ground na violation of the person right to dignity. Court later order say make di people wey violate another person right to dignity pay dat person big money.

The mata neva end

We write am before sey right to dignity include dat pesin no go be forced to perform compulsory labour. From the paragraphs of subsection (2), we get action which no come under forced compulsory labour;

1. Labour wey pesin must do as a result of sentence of a court or order of a court.

2. Labour wey pesin wey be member of armed forces of the Federation or Nigeria Police Force go do in furtherance of his duties.

3. Labour which a pesin who conscientiously objects to serve in the armed force go perform as an alternative to such service.

4. Labour wey dey necessary when we get any emergency or life threatening calamity.

5. Labour wey form part of a pesin civic obligation.

6. Labour wey result from compulsory national service in the armed forces as the National Assembly go don prescribe.

7. Labour resulting from compulsory national service which dey part of education and training of citizens in  Nigeria as go be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. Here, di National Youth Service Corps Decree No.51 of 16 June 1993 which prescribes the one year National Youth Service Corp Program.

After dem don breach pesin right to dignity, what next?

If anybodi torture you, use you do slave, or any other things wey dey against your right to dignity, you get the right to carry your matter go court. Hope una remember our oda post on right to freedom of movement, we talk sey for mata wey concern breach of fundamental human rights, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun  J.S.C in FUTMINNA v. Olutayo talk am sey both the Federal High Court and State High Court get concurrent jurisdiction.

That aside, e go beta mek you know sey di enforcement of dis rights, in dis case di right to dignity, must be the main claim and not an ancillary claim. Dis we go find for Fundamental Rights (enforcement procedures) Rules 2009.

To undastand di tori, we go use di case of Mrs Uchechi Nwachukwu v Henry Nwachukwu & Anor (2018) LPELR-SC. 601/2013. For dis case, one man chase him wife comot for di marriage unto say di woman get HIV. Di appellant no get anoda choice but to come dey sleep outside, and faced humiliation becos of the stigma from di respondents actions. She come claim sey di respondents physical torture, harassment, embarrassment, inhumane and degrading treatment amounted to di violation of her right to dignity. Walter Onnoghen, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (as he be then) dismissed the appeal and talk am sey from di facts of di case, di case arose from di matrimonial relationship between di appellant and the first respondent with di main claim as restoration of di appellant back to her matrimonial home.

My pipu my pipu, make una like our post, follow us on twitter @LAWGin_ng and send your comments to law.gin.20@gmail.com. Till next time but don’t forget sey LAW-Gin dey for una.

Before pipu begin dey use big big grammar, na hin our elders don put am for simple tori say: wakawaka no dey kill anybodi, na anywhere wey sweet owner of leg fit carry him leg go. But, mek you wait small o. Naso e be true true? Make we reason am as e be for Nigeria today today.

As our elders talk am, na so dem put am for Naija konstitution too. If you check Section 41, you go see am for there wey dem say “Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom”. In addition to the right to wakawaka, the law talk am again say as di Naija person wey you be:

● you fit reside for anywhere wey sweet your belle

● you fit carry body enter or comot Naija as you want (dis na wat dem call “right to free ingress into Nigeria and egress from Nigeria”), and

● no person fit throwey you for this contri.

The right to wakawaka or sté for any place, as we talk, na for only citizens of Naija. E no mata if you be citizen by birth, by registration, or by naturalization. Dat is, na only pesin who be citizen for this we contri fit claim say im get right to freedom of movement. E go better make you know dat citizenship pass say dem just born pesin for Naija.

You get right to wakawaka, but…..

But chillax. Na the gods wey create antelope na dem still create lion. As una know, na wakawaka make Amaka chook leg insaid mouse trap wey Agbabiaka put for him farm. As dem say you get right, e also get some kain things wey you no fit do o.

For Naija konstitution, if you check Section 41(2), your right to wakawaka no go get mouth if:

● Any reasonable law dey wey don put padlock or limit to the right to wakawaka.

● Person be criminal or dem suspect am say he be criminal.

● Dem say person commit offence for the abroad and dem wan go bundle am go court for that contri….or dem say make person go enter jail for that contri wey he commit offence.

No be for here di mata end. Section 45 talk am sey your right to wakawaka or sté for any place no be say make you come dey totori other people. That is to say, the right to wakawaka no get strength if any law dey “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons”. Na so dem sey na where pesin right end na where anoda pesin right begin.

Wetin Naija courts talk for this matter?

For we wey dey alive that time, una go remember dat mata between Alhaji Shugaba Abdurrahaman Darman versus Minister of Internal Affairs (1981) 2 NCLR 459. Na dat case be the ogbonge case wey support the right to wakawaka for dis Naija. Alhaja Shugaba na big man politician for Benue dat time. But onto say one thing one thing happen, Federal Government carry Alhaji come deport am say him papa na from Chad and say Alhaji onto no be citizen of Naija.

After dem prove am say Alhaji mama na Naija citizen, and so therefore, Alhaji Shugaba too na citizen by birth, di court throwey the deportation matter come talk sey Alhaji get the right to wakawaka and stay for Naija as e be for the contri konstitution.

Even di court for Director of SSS v Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314 agree sey refusal to make pesin exit Nigeria no follow wetin the konstitution talk onto right to wakawaka.

Anoda case for di right to wakawaka or sté for any part of Naija be Apph & Ors v. Oturie, wey dem community elders put mouth together banish Mr. Oturie and im family. After di kourt talk am sey di allegations for which dem elders banish Mr. Oturie no hold water, di kourt throwey di mata and hold sey dem don violate him right to sté.

Now wey dem don tackle your right to wakawaka, wetin come happen?

You get right to tackle anybody wey tackle you. If you feel say dem violate your right to wakawaka or sté for any place for the contri, e go better make you go consult your lawyer o.

In fact, make I add sey di enforcement of dis right also be for where them no violate di right but di pesin feel sey wahala don enter him right to enjoy him freedom of movement.

My pipu, e get sometin make u no forget, where it be sey them don violate pesin right to freedom of movement, na the High Court of dat State get original jurisdiction over di mata. By original jurisdiction, we mean sey na only di High Court of the State go fit hear the mata first.

All dis dey for section 46 of di Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999;

1. Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.

2. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of this section…

However, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun J.S.C talk am for the case of FUTMINNA v Olutayo sey both di Federal High Kourt (FHC) and State High Court (SHC) get concurrent jurisdiction for mata wey concern breach of fundamental human rights. Hope una no what concurrent jurisdiction mean? If u no sabi, LAW-gin dey for u. Concurrent jurisdiction mean sey different kourts get jurisdiction to hear di mata at di same time. As it dey so, pesin go fit approach the Federal High kourt or the State High Court wey dem don violate him right to freedom of movement. However, any of di kourt between FHC and SHC wey di pesin go go exercise im jurisdiction exclusively.

Make u no sey remedies like damages, injunction, declaration, and plenty others dey for any infringement (ibi jus ibi remedium). My pipu, after di kourt don dismiss di case for Apph & Ors v. Oturie, the kourt come grant Mr. Oturie two million naira in general damages and fifty thousand naira for cost. Abeg, before you go start to jump, make you no sey di kourt no be fada Christmas, as it no go grant remedy wey pesin no ask.

If you sabi your right, nobody fit do you magomago. Person wey try am don jam trobul be dat. Naso freedom of movement/wakawaka be. For all una wey hear something new, we still get more to come, and for all pesin wey don hear everything before, make you still dey read our post. For now sha, e go be.