Essential Attributes of HRs: (3) INDIVISIBILITY & INTERDEPENDENCY

Kabiru works as a security officer in the house of Dr Alabi. Although, he was hired as a ‘gateman’, there is hardly any other chores Kabiru does not do in Dr Alabi’s compound. He washes the cars (Alabi has two, Lexus Jeep and a Toyota 4Runer), does gardening and man the security post. Since he took up the job about 3 years ago, he has not had time to go anywhere. Some time last year, he indicated interest to travel home for the Salah break, but Alabi would not have it, arguing that he did not hire him to be away from his duty post. Kabiru has since shelved the idea of traveling.

What worries Kabiru about his job the most however, is not even the manner in which his movement is restricted. It is rather that his condition of work has been poor and unappealing. The security room where he is supposed to live and operates from has barely anything for comfort. The room has an old stool Kabiru had patched more than five times since he resumed work, and a matt he uses to pray and also sleep upon. The room’s window is like a pigeon hole so that staying inside is pretty much like being carried in a black Maria van.

To make matters worse, Dr Alabi has not been forthcoming with Kabiru’s N10,000 monthly pay as at when due. For about 7 months now, he has been fed one story or another as to why he should exercise patience. While Kabiru waits in patience however, Dr Alabi never misses to entertain ‘business friends’, family members and ‘associates’ to sumptuous parties and dinners at almost every turn of the weekend. It is during this type of occasion that Kabiru gets to ‘feel his Oga’. He would be served food enough to keep his mouth munching for days. And when latter he gets to request for his meagre salary, he would be told:

“Ah, Kabiru! Don’t act like we treat you bad in this house? We give you food here. Wait, in this era of economic recession, who doesn’t owe salary in this country? Abeg, wait till next week please.”
_____________________________________________

Kabiru’s fate is similar to many people in our society today. Ours is a society that cuts and separate what are individuals’ due, and then give them in piecemeal while framing it to look as if, they are actually doing the individuals really some good that deserve commendation. For instance, during the peak of late payment of salary in Nigeria, the one blamed on the recent economic recession, few governments who were managing to keep up to date were busy broadcasting on air how good and praiseworthy their principals were. They do not owe salaries. But after a check on these governments, it was discovered that these same governments owe huge backlog of emoluments due to their workers outside the statutory monthly take home, including refusal to honour promotion awarded to workers. Till date, some states are still paying piecemeal salaries, with some workers receiving almost 25% of their monthly pay.

Away from salary, dignity of labour requires that a person’s condition of work should be dignifying. This principle takes into cognisance, things like number of hours spent on work, hours given for rest and leisure, and the condition of work space, whether such supports the worker to deliver more efficiently. It also involves whether a worker has access to health package that allow him/her to enjoy good health benefits. Opportunity for workers to development their capacity, and for what is called “vertical mobility of labour” (i.e. room for promotion) also count in favour of dignifying work condition. These issues are well covered in international instruments like International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (see Article 7, a through d). Section (d) of Article 7 particularly addresses the need for leisure, “periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays”.

Although, Nigeria is a signatory to the above Covenant, both public and private employers of labour continue to selectively honour some while violating many of these rights. their argument is akin to Dr Alabi’s family. They can afford to owe workers, but not the other way around. At least, they fulfil ‘some obligations’. Unfortunately, one of the fundamental principles undergirding respect for human rights is indivisibility. Human rights are a wholesome set of fair packages which should not be selectively respected.

Why is this the case? Well, no right is more important than the other, and each right is intricately linked to the rest of others. Take for instance, the picture painted above about Kabiru and his job. You cannot begin to discuss whether his pay is more important than the condition of his work. In each category, the condition of where he works, the amount of rest he gets, and of course, his take home package, all of these things invariably affect his human dignity by adding something to it (when they are fairly supplied) or subtracting something from it (when they are not met).

Are rights interdependent then? Absolutely, yes. The health of a worker obviously affects his/her productivity and job satisfaction. Equally, capacity building can positively impact on the dignity of labour. Hence, neglecting these elements, as many employers are doing in our society, grossly negate best practice and of course, violates human rights principles.

Beyond labour, this discussion can be applied to other sectors of the society. For instance, you don’t choose to feed your children while refusing them access to education when you can afford, or you don’t praise yourself for giving food money to your wife everyday while at every slight provocation, turn her into a punching bag, or you don’t choose to seek citizens’ votes while refusing them participation in issues of governance. Human rights are indivisible and are interdependent.

Shalom!

Contributors: C. O. Ikegbunam Esq.
C. A. Nwankwo Esq.
D. A. Okoliko

Disclaimer:
This is a free educational material and not a source of legal advice. If you need any, please consult your lawyer.

HRCRC Staff having outdoor activity during their 2017 Staff Day

Is child rights protected by law?

Recently a story about a 4-year-old girl, Uloma, made a headline in a regional newspaper, Citizens’ Advocate. Uloma was found in a slave-like manner under the watch of a certain woman, Mrs Nwali Josephine. The woman is not the little girl’s mother. Weeks before Uloma was discovered, she hawked for her ‘madam’, Mrs Nwali, with little care and feed. Her suffering was terrible such that when the Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development found her, she was ill and had pultruding stomach indicating poor care and feeding.

You might be wondering how Uloma ended up with Mrs Nwali? Well, her mother, Veronica Igwe traded with Mrs Nwali at a rice-mill and could not pay up a balance of N 100. Uloma was then exchanged in place of the debt pending when her mother could pay. Now in the police custody over alleged child trafficking, Mrs Nwali and Mrs Igwe are wondering why anyone should frown at their actions. Was Uloma not freely given by her mother, and didn’t Mrs Nwali promise to return the child whenever she gets her pay back?

It is not difficult to see the error in the above reasoning. While the two adults engage each other in a contractual agreement, the involvement of the child problematizes their action. Child rights is a fundamental issue worldwide, and both Nigeria’s laws and international instruments have special provision for child rights protection. Often times however, interest of the child is rarely or never factored whenever adults take decisions that involve a child as it happened in Uloma’s case. The fact that children everywhere are generally dependent heightens their vulnerability. It is precisely for this reason however, that the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (CRC) {28/11/1989} sets out principles to mainstream child interest, such that in all nations of the world, for every act which may impact on a child, the interest of that child takes precedence. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, adopted at the General Assembly of AU in 1990 also prioritises child’s interest, insisting the child has the right to grow up in the family environment free from violence, fear and torture.

To step it down, beyond the provisions of the Nigeria’s Constitution in Chapter IV which sets out fundamental rights, and which in principle, are extensive to children, recent effort to give special consideration to the spate of child rights violation in Nigeria has seen the UN’s CRC domesticated as Child Rights Acts in 2003. Many states have keyed into the federal Act by enacting laws to that effect including Lagos, Ebonyi (in 2010), Enugu (in 2016) and 21 others (living 12 more states behind).

Despite this effort however, more Nigerian child are exposed to violence and abuse ranging from physical to psychological and sexual. The fact that recent survey (2014) by the National Population Commission (supported by UNICEF and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) indicates that 6 out of 10 children experience at least one form of violence before their 18th birthday should make us all to shudder and awaken in us a sense of urgency to campaign aggressively against child rights violations in our society. Nelson Mandela made a remark that has import for this call. He once said:

“Safety and security don’t just happen, they are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our CHILDREN the most vulnerable citizens in any society – a life FREE from VIOLENCE and FEAR”. It is up to you and us to ensure we don’t have more Uloma situations in our communities.

When it comes to human rights, we must not forget that existence of a law giving express protection to them is not the only ground to ensure their respect. This point has been made in a Journal of Jurisprudence (2010), vol. 1, by Gumbis, J. et al. who argues that “the fact that a person has rights has nothing to do with enacting these rights in legal document”. It is rather embedded in the natural principle upholding human dignity. Thus, legal lacuna can never justify actions negating human dignity in any clime.

Shalom!

Contributors: C. O. Ikegbunam Esq.
C. A. Nwankwo Esq.
D. A. Okoliko

 

Disclaimer:
This is a free educational material and not a source of legal advice. If you need any, please consult your lawyer.

A snapshot from Citizens’ Advocate newspaper

 

 

DOES OUR CONSTITUTION PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

Oluchi was on his way to a lecture that morning. About three boys accosted him and ordered that he stopped. He turned towards them and greeted.

“O boy e, see this boy oh! Na so them dey greet senior men?”, one of the boys demanded.

Oluchi looked confused, wondering what the fuss was about. Before he could say something, one of the boys, who had gone behind him, hit him hard “packing his feet off the g

Source, gettyimages

round”. Oluchi fell with the face downward. Others joined in the beating, pounding him hard until he was left bruised and exhausted.

Chinyere was on that route to school that morning too. From a distance, she observed unusual movements of fists but couldnt not make much of her perception. As she drew near however, she saw that three guys were running away from what looked like a human figure lying on the ground. She got to the spot and found a man physically battered. She helped the man up and assisted him to a nearby clinic for medical help. She then inquired from him if he knew his attackers and what led to it. Upon realising the injustice done to him, she suggested to the man to report the matter to the police for redress.

Ah, those cult boys! Nothing would happen to them oh. Law dey wey dey protect person for this country? Oluchi voiced his frustration.
________________________________________

From the above narrative, we might consider that Oluchis expression in the preceding paragraph tells of faithlessness in the power of the Nigeria legal system to protect individuals in Nigeria. If we take it to be so, we might go further to outline factors that create such hopelessness in our justice system, like police indifference to treating citizens complaints, nepotism, godfatherism, inadequate manpower and corruption in the justice sector. These things which constitute clogs in the wheel of justice can wane citizens hope to access justice in any society.

Beyond this however, the story equally points us to wonder if our law(s) provides for the protection of Fundamental Human Rights (FHRs) as espoused in the UN Universal Declaration of Rights to which Nigeria is a signatory. The answer to that is in the affirmative. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) expressly considers FHRs in Chapter IV. Lets pick on the key points.

Right to life
Right to dignity of human person
Right to personal liberty
Right to fair hearing
Right to private and family life
Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Right to freedom of expression and the press
Right to peaceful assembly and association
Right to freedom of movement
Right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of ethnic group, place of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religion or political opinion.
Right to compensation for property compulsorily acquired

These are rights naturally accruable to every person by virtue of his/her existence as a human being and the provision of the constitution is that where such is violated, redress can be sought. With regard to Oluchi, he can appeal to section 34 of the Constitution which covers right to dignity of human persons to seek justice. Precisely, section 34 sub 2A grants that no person shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment”. The Constitution reposes in the court the authority to entertain allegations bothering on violations of FHRs such as the one cited above.

There are other human rights which, though not justiceable (cannot be enforced), are in the Constitution as expressions of aspiration for Nigerians. They include:

Free and compulsory education
Adequate health care, gainful employment
Shelter, food, etc
This set of rights, found in Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy under Chapter II of the Constitution, are aspirations attainable if and when the State has the resources. However, we believe the two sets of rights are both fundamental and complementary. To understand this, consider the implication of life without gainful employment or food to sustain life in the first place. It is the reason why International Bills of rights have argued that Human Rights are interdependent, interrelated, indivisible and universal. Hence, there is a need for our legal framework to consider upgrading Economic, Social and Cultural rights to fundamental rights.

Shalom!

Contributors: C. O. Ikegbunam Esq.
C. A. Nwankwo Esq.
D. A. Okoliko

 

Disclaimer:
This is a free educational material and not a source of legal advice. If you need any, please consult your lawyer.

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

As Ngozi descended the stairs into the mall hall at the first floor, she just knew she hadn’t been treated right. Tears welled up in her eyes and her knees were still trembling. How come she was not given a chance to defend herself? Each time she attempted to speak before her supervisor and the HR, they shouted her down.

Earlier in the morning, at about 8.00 hours, she was at her post as a cashier in a popular and busy mall. She had resumed at about 7.20 which was 10 minutes away from the red time of 7.30. As she was dressing her stands and fixing up the machine to get ready for the day’s job, Mr. Anale called up to her, instructing that she go see the top boss upstairs. It was at the boss’s office she was handed a note that spelled she was no longer needed at her place of work.

Before being given the letter, the boss had told her the management got a report on her that she fought a customer on her way home the previous day. According to them, the said customer had raised some issues concerning a transaction Ngozi handled for her during the day and instead of showing ‘a good customer relationship’, Ngozi engaged her in a public fight.

“That is unacceptable from any of our staff. You’re hereby fired”.
______________________________________________

The story above presents us an interesting scenario that is very much related to article 10 of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The article provides for rights to “fair and public hearing”and is enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution under Chapter 4, section 36. Ngozi case is chosen because it mirrors what often happens at homes, public instructions (e.g. church, schools, and hospitals) and private institutions when people are summarily judged of having committed offense. Whenever people are condemned without an opportunity to present their defense, they are left grieved. Fundamentally, such incident negates natural justice which provides that anyone accused should have,Fair hearing,that is, such an individual is given an opportunity to present evidence to support this or her case and to discover what evidence exists against him or her. Fair hearing must not be only in a criminal or civil trial as in a court. It also applies to administrative procedures to entertain complaint as provided for in section 36, subsection 1 of the Nigerian Constitution (1999 as amended):

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a FAIR HEARING within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”.

Criminal case deserves special attention as often times, extra-judicial killings/corporal punishment take place in many communities within our country. African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) provides Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003). A(1) provides in clear terms that “in the determination of any criminal charge against a person, or of a person’s rights and obligations, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a legally constituted competent, independent and impartial judicial body”. In other words, it is not in the place of a mob or group of persons other than CONSTITUTED authorities to hear, convict and met out punishment to anyone SUSPECTED to have committed a crime or an offence. And section 36(4) of the Nigerian Constitution grants that “whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a FAIR HEARING in public within a reasonable time by a COURT or TRIBUNAL”. Under these instruments, ‘jungle justice’ or mob killing/punishment is criminalised. This is because, in whatever form they come, summary judgement takes away element of justice, fair hearing, by which an accused is supposed to have a chance for reasonable defence. In the case of ‘jungle justice’, section 36(5) of the Nigerian Constitution which provides that a suspect of any crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty is blatantly violated. Note that where the accused is to be ‘proven guilty’ is not at the market square, the police post or at the field. It is at a hearing that is constituted by “competent, independent and impartial judicial body” (e.g., the court, tribunal or administrative authority vested to entertain specific complaint).

Back to Ngozi, what can she do given the circumstances surrounding her dismal from job? If the company where she was fired from has higher authority than that which effected her dismal, she can appeal to it for redress. Another option is to institute legal action in the interest of her fundamental rights. Caution however, is needed. The action needs to take into cognisance terms of engagement between the employer and Ngpzi, and Nigeria Labour Laws. Michael Dugeri, a Regulatory Compliance and Commercial Law Advisor, offers insights on the difference between termination of a contract of employment and a dismissal under Nigeria’s legal system. According to him, “In Nigeria, an employer can terminate the contract of employment with his worker at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all provided that the terms of the contract of service between them are complied with”. See Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 – 685 and Opuo v. NNPC (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 552. With dismissal however, the employer is required to give reason for the action. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 3112) 550.

Our take is that whether termination or dismissal, there are procedures (could be internal or external, e.g. labour laws), and the principle of fair hearing is central to the integrity of that procedure. Ramatu Umar-Bako (2012) cited a case which highlights this point:

“On 20 May 2011, a Federal High Court sitting in lagos, nullified the dismissal of the former Director – General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Professor Ndi Okereke – Onyuike and awarded her N500 million naira in damages for exemplary and aggravated damages for recklessness. It held that Okereke – Onyuike’s RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING was breached, the letters removing her were reckless, hasty and done in bad faith. The Judge maintained that it was ridiculous for the NSE to remove her within 24 hours based on bad and unverified allegations’ and that the NSE did not comply with the condition precedent in removing the plaintiff.”

This landmark judgement should serve to encourage other employees who have been unfairly dismissed like Ngozi in Nigeria. Equally, organisations can learn from it to avoid facing legal actions by ensuring employees are fairly treated before dismissal.

For a detailed account of principles and guidelines on fair trial, see ACHPR’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003).

Shalom!

Contributors: C. O. IkegbunamEsq.
C. A. Nwankwo Esq.
D. A. Okoliko

{image, defendernetwork.com}

 

Disclaimer:
This is a free educational material and not a source of legal advice. If you need any, please consult your lawyer.

Rights of the Suspect and Accused

Recently, a young man came to our office alongside his old father. They came to lodge a complaint. About a month earlier, they said, they got a call from an unidentified female informing them that their son was picked up by the DSS from one of the streets in Abakaliki. They quickly got to town and went to inquire at the DSS state’s command and were denied acc

DSS men

ess to the facilities. They requested to know whether their son was being held at the facility and on what ground he was held. Their request was ignored, and they were asked to leave the premises. At another time, they contracted a lawyer whom they took there for intervention, we were told. The lawyer was equally turned away without seeing the detainee except that, he was told, the boy was in their custody.

It took our intervention to later find out that the boy was charged to high court for ‘kidnaping’ and was remanded in Abakaliki Prison. All the time the boy was held in their custody, he was denied access to his relatives and to legal representation.
______________________________________________

One striking feature of democracy is the rule of law. Where due process is blatantly ignored or disregarded, democracy suffers a great blow, and so does human rights. The case represented above is very common, not only with the security agency mentioned, but with many others, including the police force. It is as if, for many security agents, there are no rules guiding the procedure of arrests and detention, and that once an individual is a suspect in an offence or crime, the individual seizes to have human rights. This practice and the ideology that informs it violate international norms and practices regarding arrest, detention and trial procedures as can be found in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. It equally negates Nigeria’s laws, including the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as amended), Criminal Procedure Act, Criminal Procedure Code and the most recent act which merged the last two, Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA, 2015). With regard to arrest and detention, there are key human rights issues that must be safeguarded as far as best international principles and practice are concerned. They include:

Right to liberty and security of person and to freedom of movement (ICCPR, 9[1], Constitution, 35[1])
Prohibition of arbitrary arrest (UDHR, 9)
Right to be informed of reasons at time of arrest and of any charges (Constitution, 36[6][a], 35[2], ACJA, 6)
Right to be brought promptly before a judge (UDHR, 10)
Right to trial within reasonable time, or release (Constitution, 36[1], ACJA)
Right to prompt access to a lawyer (Constitution, 36[6][C])
Right not to confess or testify against oneself (of silence) (ACJA, Constitution, 35[2])
Right to an interpreter when necessary (ACJA, Constitution, 36 [6][e])
Right to prompt notification of family (ACJA,
Right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty (UDHR, article 11, ICCPR 14[2], Constitution 36[5])
Right to humane treatment as a detainee (ACJA, 8)
Because of the requirement to safeguard these rights, security operatives are supposed to be guided by four principles – LEGALITY, NECESSITY, PROPORTIONALITY and ACCOUNTABILITY – whenever they carry out arrest and detention of persons suspected or accused of committing an offence/crime.

By legal consideration, they are to ascertain in the particularities of a case whether an arrest with/without a warrant is needed. It also requires the security agent to determine whether a mere invitation or arrest for detention is needed in a particular case. This is because certain civil cases do not require the involvement of police carrying out arrest. In McLaren v. Jennings, the Court of Appeal held in 2003 that it was unlawful for the police to arrest and detain the appellant with regard to the collection of a debt (a civil matter) which could be determined in courts or through the use of ADRs. Unfortunately, in practice, some security agents are often used to settle scores by individuals who consider themselves ‘connected’ to their power (soft or hard).

By necessity, issues of timing, and place of arrest are to be considered. Does it require doing it in such a manner to cause public knowledge which may cause harm to the reputation of the suspect (remember, a suspect is not a convict) or could it be done in some quite place and time.

Proportionality calls for prudency with regards to the use of force during an arrest (ACJA now provides that no unnecessary restraint such as handcuff is required).

Accountability requires that arrested persons should be brought before a court of competent authority who must decide the validity of the arrest and whether further detention is necessary or not. It also places a burden on the security agents to ensure relatives of detainees are promptly informed.

Thus, if you examine the particular case shown in the first paragraph critically, one can detect that there were serious violations of the fundamental rights of the suspect. He was denied access to a lawyer and his relatives were shut out from him. Also, if we were to go by the provision of the ACJA which now requires that detention without appearance before a judge/magistrate going beyond 48hrs at most is unnecessary, we can see how the young man’s rights to ‘be brought promptly before a judge’ was violated. Any action against the agency in question has to take these factors into consideration. More importantly, our interest here is to demonstrates to readers that even a suspect does have fundamental rights that need not be compromised.

Shalom!

Contributors: C. O. Ikegbunam Esq.
C. A. Nwankwo Esq.
D. A. Okoliko

Disclaimer:
This is a free educational material and not a source of legal advice. If you need any, please consult your lawyer.