HUMAN RIGHTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE NIGERIAN PERSPECTIVE
ABSTRACT
The inter-relationship between Human Rights and “related fields” such as Human/National Security, Development, Democracy and Good Governance was emphasised at the United Nations Millennium Summit, which resulted in a declaration that affirmed global commitments to the protection of the vulnerable, the alleviation of poverty, and the rectification of corrupt structures and processes particularly in those countries in which there is a lack of “rule of law” and good governance. The world’s leaders resolved to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to Human Security. This paper intends to analytically discuss Human Rights and Human Security with a focus on the interrelationship between human rights and concepts such as the right to development, conflict prevention, peace-making and peace-building, poverty reduction and good governance.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Insecurity or security crises in Nigeria have assumed a perennial character, the dimension of which can be appreciated when historicized and placed within the changing context. Its history dates back to the colonial period, and can be periodised into three principal eras- the colonial, the military and the democratic. Basically, the colonial state itself was a veritable source of insecurity owing to the incompatibilities it posed between state interests and national interests. As a matter of fact, the later was never a reckonable concept in the framework of colonialism which by its very nature was an imposition on the nationals and so lacked the required legitimacy as a state. The interest of the colonial state was primarily to extort the efforts and resources of the nationals, which was made possible by the removal of all visible opposition to its imposition through oppressive and coercive means, without regards to the wellbeing of the people.[1] In strict security sense, therefore, the colonial state was a state of insecurity. As recalled by Okechukwu and Abubakar,[2] the security crisis in Nigeria has colonial origins, specifically in the nature of the colonial state, its legitimacy crisis and its preoccupation with ‘Law and Order’, which threw up a specific state superstructure, state personnel and institutions to achieve those objectives. The goal was to overcome the legitimacy crisis and to achieve the extractive, accumulation and taxation objectives of the colonial state. In the colonial state the notion of security was generally confined to ‘state security’, equated to national security, which was viewed as the security of those who occupied public office. Rarely was national security viewed as the welfare and happiness of the citizens, neither was security viewed as ‘community security’, ‘societal security’ or securing the ‘common good’, defined in the most generic way. In other words, security was viewed in purely state-centric and military terms and not in social and developmental terms; it is perceived as the maintenance of state sovereignty, not in the context of a common humanity and promoting the welfare of the people. In these circumstances, national security often undermines the security of the citizens. A cursory look at the Native Authority, the colonial machinery purportedly instituted for the protection of law and order, would lend weight to the argument that Nigerians were never secured during the colonial rule.
As observed by Okechukwu and Abubakar,[3] the Native Authority was primarily saddled with the responsibility of efficient tax collection and maintenance of law and order, where law and order meant compliance without question. Whereas Native Authority ideally should create proximity between people at the grassroots and government, bringing the agitations of the former to the attention of the later and encouraging cooperation of the former with the later, all for the wellbeing of both. What obtained in the colonial system was an anathema. As recollected by Mamdani, as an institution, the Native Authority bore little resemblance to a local administration, say in Britain. Its personnel functioned without judicial restraint and were never elected. Appointed from above, they held office so long as they enjoyed the confidence of their superiors. Their powers were diffuse, with little functional specificity… Native Courts, Native Administration, and a Native Treasury – together crystallized the ensemble of powers merged in the office of the chief... these powers also included a fourth: making rules. As to the chief, Mamdani says “the chief is the petty legislator, administrator, judge, and policeman all in one. Every moment of power – legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative – is combined in this one official. Here there is no question of any internal checks and balance on the exercise of authority”. Rather than representing the interests of the people, the chief symbolized a contradictory amalgam of both arbitrariness and the quest to maintain ‘law and order’ through the control of the Natives. Therefore, what was to the colonial state a security measure was insecurity to Nigerians- as state agents became nothing other than instruments of suppression, oppression and intimidation. With decolonization, Nigeria was expected to emerge a better society bereft of insecurity tendencies, but realities since independence point in the opposite direction. We shall excuse the six years of the Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa truncated regime which, as claimed by the incursive men in uniform, was toppled on account of political inadequacies. To expend precious time on recounting the absence of security in Nigeria during the military era is akin to flogging a dead horse. The years of military rule were characterized by gross human rights abuse and repression of political dissent. The respect for rule of law and due process were abandoned for naked abuse of power. The press reported several cases of people being harassed, detained without trial, tortured, extra judicially executed, brazenly murdered, discriminated against and some forcibly displaced from their homes. Successive military governments enacted decrees aimed at curtailing the enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties by the people. The military regime’s arrogation of judicial power and prohibition of court review of its action significantly impaired the authority and independence of the judiciary. The regime of late General Sani Abacha was probably the worst. It carried out widespread repression of human rights advocates, pro-democracy activists, journalists and critics of his government. Extra judicial killings, torture, assassinations, imprisonment and general harassment of critics and opponents were the hallmark of his administration. All these culminated in the aspiration for democratic self-rule. On May 29, 1999 Nigerians wrenched themselves from the claws of military authoritarianism that had held them in fear and insecurity for years. This new era is in Nigeria referred to as the Fourth Republic, the Third Republic having been truncated in 1992 by military incursion. The question that calls for answer, which this project pursues to address, is whether or not the country has indeed experienced more security within the framework of democratic rule. Before delving into the crux of this work, it is pertinent that we establish the idea of security and how we wish to understand and use it for the avoidance of ambiguity in this research.
1.2 Aim and Objectives
At the end of this study, the research would have accomplished the following:
Identifying the major factors of National Security; and
Presenting a solution to insecurity
1.3 Statement of the Problem
National Security is a non-negotiable determinant of peaceful coexistence, and its absence is a threat to human living which can mar what man has laboured for over the years, and can also annihilate him from the society he grew up to know. The following problem is considered:
Why has terrorism become the bane of the society?
The Security Agencies has also contributed to the fall of democracy
Society unrest is now a subject of discourse irrespective of substantive laws put in place to checkmate insecurity
