Crushing COVID-19 with laws

When they were locked at home at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic from January 23, 2020, in China, Liam Kingsi and Li Xinru said they were deeply concerned about the duration of the lockdown. But as researches show, majority of the 1.4 billion citizens of the country believed the ability of the authorities to […]

When they were locked at home at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic from January 23, 2020, in China, Liam Kingsi and Li Xinru said they were deeply concerned about the duration of the lockdown.

But as researches show, majority of the 1.4 billion citizens of the country believed the ability of the authorities to deal with the situation using various measures.

• We have no Russian COVID-19 vaccine yet, FMOH announces
• ASUU alleges falsification of COVID-19 figures

That part of these measures were laws is a major lesson for Nigeria and other African countries.

“At the onset of the lockdown, there was serious apprehension among the people.

“We were worried about how we would get provisions such as rice, eggs, toiletries and face masks,” said Liam (24) who is a resident of Shenzhen in Guangdong Province of China.

Li (45) from Beijing recounted that residents had a general feeling of panic when they learnt of the nationwide lockdown.

She said, “We were scared of a second experience of the SARS pandemic of 2003.

“The supplies were sold out, and when you had to go out to the supermarkets every two days, you had to go with full body protection.”

Both citizens were encouraged when the strict emergency measures eventually paid off with the flattening of the curve in most cities; particularly in Wuhan, Hubei Province, when the lockdown was lifted on April 8.

Before then, with daily increases, the figures doubled monthly.

For instance, on January 3, there were around 44 cases; February 3,20,438 cases; March 3,27,433 cases; April 3, 81,620 cases; May 3, 82,880; and by June 1, there were 83,017 cases.

This means that in the months of May and June, the rate of infections reduced very much to 1,260 and 137 respectively, compared to the higher increases in February, March and April.

By the time the spread of the virus was brought under control on May 31, 2020, about 83,017 confirmed cases had been reported on the mainland, and 78,307 infected persons had been cured and discharged from hospital. 4,634 people had died, which represents 94.3 per cent cure rate and 5.6 per cent fatality rate, according to the State Council Information Office document titled: “Fighting COVID-19: China in Action”, released in June, 2020.

New upsurges in parts of the country in July were quickly handled.

 

Laws for enforcing shelter in place

Being among the core of response measures in the country, the legal system provided cover for such rules as social distancing, wearing face masks in public, quarantine, mandatory testing, surveillance systems and AI-enabled devises for symptoms detection.

According to Prof. Wang Chenguang of the Tsinghua University, Beijing, some of the legal tools used included Law on Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control, enacted in 2013; the Emergency Response Law (2007); the Frontier Health and Quarantine Law (1988); the Regulation on Response to Public Health Emergency (1986), and other administrative regulations and rules.

Wang includes additional rules such as the illegal wildlife trade and consumption of wild animal meat, which ban was introduced by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress (NPC) on February 24.

These laws were meant to ensure the health of the people, who are likely to be affected by infectious diseases, and to mitigate the impact of emergencies. Under the COVID-19 pandemic, these laws were strictly enforced.

As a result, instances of alleged violation of fundamental rights of citizens and foreigners were reported.

Some Africans in Guangdong Province in April accused China of human rights violations. Also, some citizens alleged that the drastic measures caused forceful seizures and losses.

These led to some legal and diplomatic backlash against the Chinese authorities.

Similarly, in enforcing COVID-19 rules, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) and other security agencies were accused of violating the human rights of the citizens; leading to several deaths.

The Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Tony Ojukwu, in statements released in March and May, bemoaned the development.

Nigeria’s shelter in place rules were hinged on the Quarantine Act of 1962, which empowers the president to make regulations to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

A bill for the amendment of the act was considered by the two chambers of the National Assembly in April but was suspended after public outrage over some “obnoxious” sections.

In the heat of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations on April 13 raised concerns about the shrinking of individual rights and press freedoms in times of emergency such as COVID-19, listing Nigeria and China as countries where violations took place.

This was echoed by other organisations such as European Federation of Journalists, World Health Organisation, and World Justice Project.

Thus, many countries had to decide on a big trade-off between public good and private rights and the choice among coercive or voluntary methods.

“To solve this dilemma, China adheres to the basic principle of putting people’s life and health first provided by the Basic Law of Health Service and Health Promotion during the emergency, even at the costs of current economic development and personal rights,” Wang said.

“No doubt, restrictions of personal rights are always painful. Therefore, they should be legal, proportionate and temporary.

“And not all measures should be coercive.

“During the current emergency, three modes of enforcement are adopted: (1) Strict enforcement by police for criminal actions such as blocking emergency supplies, (2) Inspection work by security guards such as checking temperature and residence/work ID, (3) Voluntary implementation of governmental recommendations such as internet shopping, personal hygiene and healthy lifestyle,” he added.

Strong confidence in legal system

Although the strong legal framework was criticised for being too “draconian”, Liam and Li and 84 other residents who responded to a survey by this newspaper, were in favour of the measures, maintaining that they were necessary for the effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 84 respondents were asked questions about human rights protection, COVID-19 restrictions, and confidence in judicial system. 64 respondents, which is 76 per cent rated China’s human rights observance highly.

83 respondents, which is about 99 percent, believe that restrictions using the law was necessary to curtail the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Also, 83 respondents, which is about 98.8 per cent of respondents expressed confidence in the law enforcement and judicial authorities in the country.

The fact that the underlying philosophy of the Chinese legal system is collectivist compared to the more liberal or individualistic legal system in Nigeria like Western nations, may explain why China, which was the first nation to go into a lockdown, was also the first to announce it has brought the virus under control.

How the legal/judicial system works

What is the basic working of the Chinese legal system and its rule of law to attract such high level of confidence from citizens like Liam and Li?

Article 2(1) of the Chinese Constitution stresses that, “All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people.”

Also, Article 33 to 49 of Chapter 2 grants fundamental rights and duties of citizens such as citizenship, equality, electoral rights and equality, religion, personal freedom, personal dignity, speech, among others.

These rights translate to prompt judicial determinations helped by good case management.

Unnecessary congestion of the courts is checked by the constitutional provisions.

Unlike in Nigeria, arrests and criminal prosecutions cannot be made except with the approval of the people’s procurator or the people’s court, which serves as the Department of Public Prosecutions (Nigeria’s DPP).

Furthermore, civil proceedings are commenced at the people’s court by a bill of complaint made either in written or oral form.

The bill of complain is sent to the defendant within five days of its filing, while the defendant shall file a bill of defence within 15 days from the receipt of the bill of complaint.

Yifang Wang, Sarah Biddulph and Andrew Godwin in their ‘A Brief Introduction to the Chinese Judicial System and Court Hierarchy, 2017,’ explain that when actions are eventually commenced, the court adopts the collegiate system comprising three judges in an odd number, “normally two judges and one people’s assessor.”

The Chinese setup does not only reduce the margin of error in decision making, it quickens adjudication and enhances overall judicial administration.

This contrasts with Nigeria where single judges sit at the lower courts while panels of three and seven sit at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively.

Besides, the adjudication committee, where the President of the People’s Court can send judgments to, is constitutionally empowered to retry or review such cases based on facts or the application of law, thus reducing the number of appeals.

While appeals in Nigeria go directly to the Court of Appeal, the “democratic centralism” of China makes the decision of the adjudication committee binding on the presiding judges who originally heard the case, according to Li Lin, editor of ‘Interpreting China’s Legal System’, 2018.

Indeed, cases can still move upwards in the hierarchy if either of the parties are dissatisfied with the trial and review process.

Thus, Chinese legal system has a four-level system which are Basic, Intermediate, High and the Supreme Peoples’ Court in Beijing, which is the highest court in the land.

However, the apex court is assisted by six circuit courts of equal powers.

They are First Circuit Court in Shenzhen, Second Circuit Court in Shenyang, Third Circuit Court in Nanjing, Fourth Circuit Court in Zhengzhou, Fifth Circuit Court in Chongqing and the Sixth Circuit Court in Xi’an.

This hierarchy is uniquely different to Nigeria which has a single Supreme Court in Abuja under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended). Other levels are the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and other 36 states, the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory and the Magistrate Court.

It’s about faith in the country’s system

The spokesman of the Chinese Embassy in Nigeria, Sun Saisong said several studies showed that the Chinese people are satisfied with the system, which helped in the control of the pandemic.

“Public trust in the Chinese government has risen to 95 per cent during the COVID-19 pandemic, with citizens’ responses to a survey putting the country at the top of the 11 countries covered,” Sun said, citing the survey by US-based Edelman Intelligence between April 15 and 23.

Also, on his part, the Executive Director of Centre for China Studies in Abuja, Charles Onunaiju, explained that although laws had general applications based on universal principles, each society had to adapt those laws which addressed its specific developmental needs, noting that this was what Nigeria and African countries must learn.

“Except you give a proper interpretation to the forces at play in your own specific circumstances, you cannot get it right,” he said.

Perhaps, it is such application of laws to suit the specific needs of the society that allowed Liam, Li and other citizens to see sunlight again after nearly three months under lockdown.