The adoption of a legal framework to prevent and combat terrorism in Nigeria, though long coming, finally made its way into the priority list of this government following the 1 October 2010 bomb blast that nearly marred the 50th independence anniversary celebrations in Abuja. This incident redefined the face and expression of violence and conflict in Nigeria, giving it a ‘terrorism’ flavor. Barely three months after, other bomb scares across the country and actual bomb blasts in Jos on 24 December and Abuja on 31st December 2010 made the passage of an Anti-Terrorism legislation an absolute imperative.
To this end, President Goodluck Jonathan reportedly approached the National Assembly requesting it to expedite consideration on the Anti-Terrorism legislation. This request obviously yielded fast fruit as the Senate passed the bill into law on 17 February 2011. The House of Assembly is also midway into the third reading of the said bill. These developments bring Nigeria closer to joining the growing league of countries with legislative instruments for prosecuting the ‘War against terror’. In addition to responding to local terrorism situations, the passage of the legislation would facilitate Nigeria’s compliance with its international obligations under various Anti-terrorism instruments to which it is party. It would also meet the deadlines set by the Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body that promotes national policies to fight terrorism financing.
However, as laudable as the proposed legislation is, and as even more impressive as the speed of its passage may be, there are certain concerns surrounding it that should be flagged and addressed. The first concern borders on the definition of terrorism in our Anti-Terrorism legislation. The challenge here is that in defining terrorism, definitions, like they say, are not always definitive. This explains perhaps why there is yet to be an internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Thus, unless due caution is exercised in couching the definition to avoid any broad interpretation, it could actually become a tool for suppressing human rights and political dissent. For example, the present legislation defines terrorism to include ‘acts which seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental structures of governance in order to coerce or influence government decisions’. This provision, if not subjected to judicial review, can become a basis for silencing opposition, demonstrations and public protests against offensive government policy. It can essentially be used to chain fundamental freedoms of association, movement, speech and expression.
Second, there is the question of whether our criminal justice system is credible enough and capable of ensuring the observance of fair trial procedures for persons accused of terrorism. As some jurisdictions in the world may have mistaken in practice, allegations of terrorism do not proscribe the presumption of innocence. They should also not negate the constitutionally guaranteed principles of fair trial.
Third is the issue of punishment. By prescribing death penalty for persons convicted of terrorism, the legislation has brought to the foreground again debates about the application of the death penalty in Nigeria. Like several other countries, Ghana’s anti-terrorism law prescribes for life imprisonment and Nigeria could do well to begin to move away from imposing the death penalty for offences. It has never served as an effective deterrent and probably never will.
Also, though the legislation does not necessarily contain a list of terrorist groups such as found in Anti-terrorism legislations in other African countries such as Uganda, it however empowers certain security agencies to advise the President to proscribe certain groups as terrorists. This would remain problematic and open to abuse by the executive unless a provision is made allowing for judicial review of such decisions to proscribe any group or individual.
Lastly, it is also worth noting what the Anti-terrorism legislation will NOT do for Nigerians. It will not address the underlying causes of most of the conflict we are experiencing across the country. It certainly would not seal up the deep social, economic, religious, ethnic, cultural and political divides and fault lines that run across the country. These are the root causes of terrorism and other violent expressions of conflict. They simply cannot be legislated away. The growing tide of terrorism in Nigeria is unarguably the by-product of internecine conflicts drawn from long political marginalization, social inequalities and deep poverty amidst plenty. It is merely adorned with a religious cloak as a camouflage to facilitate mobilization and justification.
While the passage and signing of the Anti-Terrorism legislation is commendable, particularly for providing a legal framework to combat terrorism, it is however, distant to the immediate yearnings of the average Nigeria. For example, about 13 criminal justice administration bills have been pending before the National Assembly since 1999. Each of these bills has the capacity to reform our police, courts and prisons. But after 11 years, none has been given enough attention to become law. Nigerians would also have certainly preferred such expeditious passage of laws that address issues of electoral fraud and abuse of political office. These are as damaging to the society as a terrorist’s bomb. So in the haste to pass an Anti-terrorism legislation, the government should be wary of fashioning an instrument that could have devastating efforts on human rights without impacting much on crime prevention and punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment