June 26, 2014 Anambra State Government and Police Authorities must prioritise respect for the due process safeguards for criminal suspects while addressing the publics/communities’ concerns for safety and security Crime-fighting and observance of human rights are not to be viewed or treated as though they are in conflict or that they are mutually exclusive. They are no substitutes or alternatives to each other. Both can and must go side by side. It is possible to respect human rights and due process while fighting crime. In fact, to undercut due process and abridge human rights in the process of fighting crime amounts to crime. Legal framework for the protection of human rights in the context of law enforcement in Nigeria The Nigerian Constitution and other legislation govern the operations and functions of the Nigeria Police. The framework of legal standards on policing in Nigeria also includes international laws and treaties and laws accepted by or applicable to Nigeria as a member of the international community. Nigeria has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (Torture Convention), both of which prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by law enforcement and state agents. Successive leaderships of the NPF have acknowledged the principle that the Police is created and regulated by law. Addressing a public gathering in Abuja in December 2005, then Inspector-General of Police, Sunday Ehindero, stated the doctrine of the Police as follows: ‘It is obvious that the duties of the Nigeria Police Force are a direct consequence of the powers conferred on it by law. It becomes mandatory that the law must regulate the performance of its duties relating to arrest, detention, search, and seizure and the use of force. In other words, these duties must be exercised strictly within the limits prescribed for the Police by law. And any form of exercise of these powers which does not strictly conform to the prescriptions of the law can have unpleasant consequences for the Police Force (as a corporate entity, as well as for the individual Police personnel).’ In nearly all civilian jurisdictions today, extrajudicial killings and summary executions are illegal, as they violate the right of the accused to fair a trial before a punishment of death. Almost all constitutions or legal systems based on common law have prohibited execution without the decision and sentence of a competent judge. Section 33 of Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fundamental Rights): (1) Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria (2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary– For the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property; In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or For the purpose of suppression a riot, insurrection or mutiny. The UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit execution without the decision and sentence of a competent judge: ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No man shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily.’ ‘(The Death) penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court’ – ICCPR Article 6.1 and 6.2 It is clear, from the foregoing, that the Nigerian Constitution contains, among other guarantees, rights to life, liberty, fair hearing and due process; prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and gives victims of human rights violations a right of access to courts for redress and remedies. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which makes the African Charter part of Nigeria’s domestic law, reinforces these human rights guarantees which are essential for effective policing. In particular, both the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter guarantee the presumption of innocence and prohibit torture. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of Police investigation. Through investigation, the Police gather evidence with which to rebut the presumption in specific cases. However in Nigeria “confirmed” armed robbery suspects are usually “escorted,” sent on an “errand,” or “transferred to Abuja”—all euphemisms for the unlawful summary and extrajudicial execution of suspects. Suspects are “confirmed” through torture and “escorted” or “transferred” through summary execution or disappearance. Persons suspected of, or arrested for, armed robbery are particularly at risk of extrajudicial execution. Let me re-emphasise that national law and international human rights standards stipulate that every arrested person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a public trial at which the person has had all the guarantees necessary for his or her defence. It is for the court to decide if a suspect is guilty. This can only be done after all the evidence has been heard and the person has been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nigerian law and international human rights standards limit the duration within which any person arrested for an offence may be legally held in detention. The police must always ensure immediate release of persons arrested or otherwise charge and properly try them before a regular court respecting international standards of due process; The police must always allow all those held in custody for whatever reason full access to lawyers of their choice, their families and private doctors; The police must ensure that conditions of detention and imprisonment are in full compliance with international standards. Police authorities must enforce code of conduct, discipline and professionalism in the police by ensuring that all police officers responsible for breach of these fundamental human rights and due process guarantees for persons that come to their attention are appropriately punished. The current situation in Nigeria: Anambra State Let me illustrate the typical policing method prevalent in Nigeria with some test cases. On June 18, 2014 some newspaper reports quoted Mr. Usman Gwari, Commissioner of Police Anambra State Command, as having referred to a certain Anambra State Law which supposedly empowers the police in the state to deal summarily with anyone accused of kidnapping and to demolish any building/property used for kidnapping in the state. He said this while parading some people as kidnappers. One Chiagorom Iheagwa, a business man based in Asaba, Delta State and whom NOPRIN received the complaint about his arrest and detention at SARS Awkuzu, Anambra State since May 29 was among those paraded on June 17, 2014 by the CP and the O/C SARS as kidnappers. The parade took place few days after NOPRIN, in response to the complaint it received from Chiagorom’s relatives, inquired from the O/C SARS Awkuzu about his indefinite detention at SARS and the fears that he was being tortured to confess as is the common practice in SARS. About three weeks before they were paraded, the Officer in charge (O/C) Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS), Awkuzu Mr. James Nwafor (CSP) also told Chiagorom Ihejiagwa’s younger brother - Calistus Ihejiagwa, a lawyer who visited SARS to see his brother that he should not come back to ask for him again because the law in Anambra authorises the police to deal summarily with kidnappers. He said he told him emphatically that he is a confessed kidnapper and we will kill him. The O/C SARS refused his request to be allowed to see his brother and hear from him. Two days after Chiagoroms family members read the news about his being paraded with others as a kidnaper, another relative was again sent to the O/C SARS to inquire and the OC told him that they (police) have taken Chiagorom’s case file to the Governor Mr. Obiano and that they are awaiting his response. When they informed NOPRIN about this, we wondered whether this was the proper procedure. We wondered if the governor now also combines the role of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) who gives advice as to whether there is prima facie evidence to prosecute or not. Chiagorom’s younger brother, Calistus, the lawyer decided, after consultation with us, to go to the office of the DPP, Ministry of Justice, Awka to find out if the police had referred the case file to the DPP. After the visit, he reported back to us as follows: ‘I met with the Attorney General and the DPP at Awka yesterday (June 24), both complain about the extrajudicial activities of James Nwafor and his SARS but unfortunately there is nothing they can do at this point until the file is transferred to them when they are eventually charged to court…’ Chiagorom Ihejiagwa’s brother narrated to us how his brother informed them before he was arrested that one SARS operative known as Pele was repeatedly calling him on phone, accusing him of having bought a stolen vehicle two years ago and was persistently asking him to come and give him his own share. It was due to his denial of the allegation and his refusal to bring Peles share of what he believed was the proceed of crime that prompted Pele and his other fellow operatives to storm his shop at Asaba in May and arrest him and his wife. His wife, a nursing mother of a one month old baby, reported that she was ‘physically and emotionally molested’ by the police officers and that one of them slapped her. The police took her the next day to their residence in Asaba where they searched and ransacked the house, found nothing incriminating and took away electronic gadgets and other household property. They later took her to her husband’s shop where they also searched and found nothing incrimination and carted away goods and cash. ‘Mkpochapu’: The Organising framework for ‘anti crime’ campaign in Anambra state Police in Anambra, particularly, SARS have been known over the years for their notoriety for human rights abuses. The report of a research conducted in Anambra State in 2007 entitled ‘PATTERNS AND PREVALENCE OF POLICE ABUSES IN NIGERIA: a National Impact and Advocacy Research: Anambra State underscored this fact. An excerpt from the report, under the subhead: The Special Anti Robbery Squad: Most responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture’ read ...SARS is responsible for most cases of extra judicial killing, torture, extortion and prolonged detention of detainees in police custody. They often levy trumped-up charges and twist common offences such as misdemeanour into serious crimes such as armed robbery or murder just to raise the stake for extortion. Many detainees die from torture or outright shooting in custody. Many detainees disappear for being unable to meet up with bribe demands. Often, no official records of such detainees are kept. The dead bodies of suspects killed extra judicially are rarely taken to morgues but buried in shallow graves at various burial grounds or dumping sites. This explains why not much information could be got from mortuary attendants. Such cemeteries are found in Awada near MCC, Upper Iweka. There are many isolated dumping site for dead bodies such as the one at Agu Awka. Victims of extra judicial killing are also thrown into the River Niger, often at the dead of the night. The o/c SARS is known in many quarters as ‘Chief torturer’. The report further found that Revenue contractors often work in collaboration with SARS officers to rope in ‘revenue defaulters’, some of whom are framed up with armed robbery charges if they fail or refuse to ‘play ball’ – meaning to pay bribe…’ There is no doubt however that the law or the notion of the existence of the ‘law’ which the CP and the O/C SARS often refer to in their presumed fight against crime in the state have emboldened them to commit more crimes and abuse rights with impunity The police in Anambra State, particularly, the SARS routinely arrest and detain people indefinitely-usually incommunicado, torture them to confess and in some cases, extort huge sums of money from their relatives and summarily execute or disappear many of them on kidnapping, armed robbery and sundry other criminal allegations. NOPRIN has inquired from those who should know but cant confirm the existence of, or lay hands on, any such law. Therefore, we have called on the CP Anambra and the O/C SARS, Awkuzu to give a full citation of this law or direct us to where we could site and/or get a copy of it. ‘Not just incidents, but a Pattern and Design’ We are aware that Governor Obiano says one of his administrations priorities is security. And Mkpochapu is the organising framework for that. The arrest, unlawful detention, extortion, torture and extrajudicial execution and disappearances of several people accused of kidnapping and other crimes without being charged to court and the arbitrary and extra legal resort to demolishing buildings of people accused or merely suspected of involvement in kidnapping are not just incidents; they are part of a pattern and design. They are all taking place as part of this Anambra States anti-crime draconian and repressive policy of Mkpochapu. We recognise that this policy is a carryover from the administration of the immediate past governor of Anambra Mr. Peter Obi who is Mr. Obianos predecessor. Peter Obis foundation of arbitrariness Under Peter Obi, the lives of several innocent people accused of crime were wasted without anyone accounting for them while many buildings belonging to persons accused- but not yet convicted- of crime were demolished in Anambra state without court warrants. Mr. Obi said it was ‘in line with the policy of his administration to sustain the fight against crime and criminality’ in the state. In the early days of his administration, Peter Obi, in response to violent clashes between the National Union of Road Transport Owners (NARTO) and the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) in 2006 imposed a curfew and secured the deployment joint security forces of military and police to enforce the curfew with orders to ‘shoot at sight’. This order to shoot at sight resulted to heavy casualties among several residents including innocent people who were going about their legitimate business. Obi ignored calls to ensure the prosecution of security agents responsible for abuses and appeals by several of the victims for assistance. In the conclusion to the report by NOPRIN in 2007, we observed that: ‘The shoot at sight order was responsible for numerous unwarranted killings, many of the victims are still lying in mortuaries and their families are demanding for their proper burial and for adequate compensation. Violence and insecurity will continue as long as the government continues with its highhanded approach in response to the activities of the various groups…’ Arbitrariness is not consistent with democratic ethos.’ In a recent statement, NOPRIN had asserted that Governor Peter Obi’s policy of summary execution for suspected kidnapers and demolition of properties allegedly used for committing crimes, without due process, possessed the ominous potential of entrenching the culture of lawlessness and impunity, leaving behind legacies of violence, disregard for due process and devaluation of human life and ultimately undermining- if not- reversing the march towards democratic and civilised governance. We also argued that governor Obi’s rationalisation of such clearly illegal and primitive policy is preposterous and unfounded in logic and law. One of the tragic and in some cases, irreversible consequences of this arbitrary and draconian anti crime measure is the victimisation of the innocent. We have documented many mind-boggling instances where the victims were eventually found to be innocent of the allegations after they had already been unjustly and unlawfully punished on account of or in the pretext of those allegations. Two cases will suffice to illustrate how innocent people have been punished in pursuit of this anti crime policy. 1. The case of Mr. Amobi Nzedigwe NOPRIN received information and investigated the case of one Mr. Amobi Nzedigwe of Akamanator village Nando who was framed up, arrested and tortured for the period of 4 months he was detained at SARS Awkuzu. He presented NOPRIN with a written account of the circumstances of his arrest and the ordeal he suffered while in detention at SARS. He informed NOPRIN that his arrest was in connection with a community leadership tussle which tore the community into two factions, each supporting one of two rival political figures. He narrated to NOPRIN how a retired deputy commissioner of police from the community Mr. John Achum belonging to the opposing group masterminded his arrest by framing him up with an allegation of kidnapping and murder of one Ifeanyi Nwabia. This was after he attempted in vain- first, through persuasion and later, by threats, to bring him over to his own camp. SARS had demanded 200 thousand naira from Mr. Amobi to release him before the case was transferred to Zone 9, Umuahia following a petition by someone else connected to the case. It was at Zone 9 Umuahia that it was established that Ifeanyi Nwabia actually died in the custody of SARS contrary to the claim that Amobi Nzedigwe kidnapped and murdered him. At Zone 9, the then Assistant Inspector General of Police Tambari Yabo was able to establish, through painstaking personal investigation, that Mr. Amobi was framed up. He unravelled the role played by officers at SARS in the frame up and discovered that Ifeanyi Nwabia was actually killed while in SARS custody. The AIG then summoned the O/C SARS, CSP James Nwafor and the IPO to Zone 9 where, after his failed attempts to cover up, the O/C SARS had not option than to admit that Ifeanyi Nwabia died in his custody. Explaining why he initially denied, he pretended to have known the victim by a different name 2. The case of Chief Bonaventure Mokwe Mokwe was arrested by SARS on August 1, 2013- along with his wife, Mrs. Nkiru Mokwe, a senior State Counsel in Anambra State judiciary and his hotel workers. Mokwe and his workers were detained for 81 days before an Anambra High Court granted them bail. His hotel was also demolished on the same day he was arrested on the orders of and personal supervision by former governor Peter Obi. It later turned out that Mokwe was frame up with the allegation of ritual murder for which he suffered all the injustice. It was revealed that the person- Nnalue Okafor- whom SARS accused Mokwe of killing for ritual was actually extrajudicially executed at SARS months before Mokwes arrest. NOPRINs investigation exposed the fact that Nnalue Okafor was arrested during a raid of MASSOB members in Onitsha and detained at SARS Awkuzu. His IPO was one Emma. Nnalue’s parents and two lawyers visited SARS on different occasions but were never allowed to see him until he eventually disappeared. Like in the case of Amobi Nzedigwe, SARS tried to put the death of Nnalue on the head of Mokwe. But it backfired. Anambra state government and police authorities in the state are yet to give a credible account of the dead bodies found floating on Ezu River or refute the allegation that the dead bodies were those of persons detained and summarily executed by SARS Awkuzu. In our previous briefings and interactions, we already presented to you NOPRINs full report on some of the cases it received complaints about. We have also included in this statement, details of other recent cases of extrajudicial killing at Awkuzu SARS and other police stations across the country all of which we have forwarded to the Inspector General of Police and the National Human Rights Commission. NOPRIN has repeatedly drawn the attention of police authorities in Anambra State and at the centre to these numerous and ever increasing cases of people being arrested and detained at SARS Awkuzu, denied access to family and legal representation and sometimes paraded without any credible and verifiable evidence of their involvement in the crimes they were accused of. Often the police disclose the alleged offences of the detainees for the first time while parading them before the media. While we acknowledge that Anambra state is plagued with violent crime and that there is every justification to step up the fight against crime, the approach to such a fight will be counterproductive if it does not conform to the rule of law and if it supplants or de-emphasises the observance of human rights Any state law or policy, such as ‘Mkpochapu’ which conflicts with the constitution and undermines international standards of due process and the rule of law is illegal and, we dare say, criminal. You cannot fight individual crime with state crime. Presumption of innocence is the foundation of police investigation. Mkpochapu is a belligerent anti crime policy similar to and reminiscent of “Operation Fire-for-Fire a federal anti-crime task force established by former Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun on his inauguration in 2002. Operation Fire for Fire was part of the eight-point strategy launched by Tafa Balogun to crackdown on violent crime in Nigeria. Under this strategy, the police were given license to shoot at sight. This yielded a heavy harvest of human rights violations. Local and international observers noted that not only did this confrontational response fail to significantly reduce incidents of violent crime, but the Nigerian Police Force was often accused of the disproportionate use of force in their fight against criminal activity. In response to the increasing crime waves accompanying the return to civil rule in Nigeria in 1999, many states also established similar anti crime outfits - from Operation Sweep in Lagos State, replaced by a new Rapid Response Squad to Operation Flush in Rivers State, replaced by a Swift Operations Squad, etc. The methods used by the new units which exist till date, seem, however, to resemble those of their predecessors used by the military. Human Rights Watch in a report in 2005 observed that, the term “armed robber” has become part of the national lexicon and is frequently used by Nigerians to refer to any person suspected of any form of criminal activity, regardless of whether they were carrying a weapon. For those individuals labelled “armed robbers” there is often an automatic presumption of guilt, which serves as a justification for unlawful detention, torture and killing. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions commented during a visit to Nigeria in July 2005, “While I do not for a moment under-estimate the scourge of armed robbery which plagues too much of Nigeria, there is no doubt in my mind that the label of armed robbers is very often used to justify the jailing of innocent individuals who have come to the attention of the police for reasons ranging from a refusal to pay a bribe to inconveniencing or insulting the police or some general offence against public order.” Once arrested, armed robbery and other criminal suspects are frequently paraded before journalists in order to illustrate the success of anti-crime operations, thus appearing to label them guilty prior to a trial before a court. In Anambra state since the inception of the new anti crime policy by Obi and now, Obiano, the label ‘kidnapper’, just like armed robber has become an easy pretext to settle scores or victimise innocent people in Anambra State. Once arrested, armed robbery and other criminal suspects are frequently paraded before journalists in order to illustrate the success of anti-crime operations, thus appearing to label them guilty prior to a trial before a court. Anambra State Government and Police Authorities must prioritise respect for the due process safeguards for criminal suspects while addressing the concerns of the community for safety and security. Democracy is protected by the rule of law. Any law, policy or practice that supplants or substitutes the rule of law or derogates human rights is a threat to democracy. Anambra state government and police authorities must put an end to jungle justice and all anti crime policies and approaches that are arbitrary, promote self-help/lawlessness and result to human rights abuse. CALLS The Nigeria Police must put an end to arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without charge. Every arrested person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a public trial at which he/she has had all the guarantees necessary for his or her defence. It is for the court to decide if a suspect is guilty. This can only be done after all the evidence has been heard and the person has been proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Police must always ensure immediate release or charge and proper trial before a regular court respecting international standards of due process of all those held in detention; The police must always allow all those held in custody for whatever reason full access to lawyers of their choice, their families and private doctors; The police must ensure that conditions of detention and imprisonment are in full compliance with international standards. Police authorities must enforce codes of conduct and ensure discipline and professionalism in the police by ensuring that all police officers responsible for breach of the fundamental human rights and due process guarantees for detainees are appropriately punished. NOPRIN calls on the IGP, for the umpteenth time, to reorganise SARS and the entire anti crime operations of SARS across Nigeria. This will include investigating the crimes committed by the various O/C SARS, particularly, the one at Awkuzu , Anambra State and bringing them to account for unlawful detention, torture, extrajudicial killings and disappearances of persons held in their custody.
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:52:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015