For those who can’t speak

investigation uncovered that within the same period, 3,335 dead bodies had been deposited at the Sani Abacha Specialist Teaching Hospital in Maiduguri alone. The Amnesty report didn’t say at which hospital the 950 were deposited; but it was known that there were other places where bodies were being deposited.What the world suspected had been going […]

investigation uncovered that within the same period, 3,335 dead bodies had been deposited at the Sani Abacha Specialist Teaching Hospital in Maiduguri alone. The Amnesty report didn’t say at which hospital the 950 were deposited; but it was known that there were other places where bodies were being deposited.
What the world suspected had been going on behind the closed doors of detention centres had now become indubitably clear from the Amnesty and AP reports, that soldiers have open-ended powers to raid homes, violate the privacy of occupants, pick them up and detain them without trial—and then kill them.
For those innocents caught up in the crossfire and picked up, for those picked up by overzealous, vindictive and vengeful operatives, and for those unlucky enough to be in the arena of operation at the wrong time, barring a miracle, the conclusion is often final, which is not what any law-abiding Nigerian will expect from those who are paid to defend the fatherland.
These are some of the internationally-agreed principles that are supposed to guide the handling of detainees are: that arrest and detention of persons can only take place in accordance with provisions of the law; that there shall be no restriction upon, or derogation of, the human rights of detainees; that detainees are entitled to humane treatment; and that any form of detention and all measures affecting the human rights of detainees shall only be ordered by or be subject to the effective control of a judicial or other authority; and that no detainee shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; that all detainees shall have access to legal assistance; that all detainees shall have right to visitation by family members; and that these principles shall be applied without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national, ethnic or social origin.
Unless they are able to handle detainees in the manner stated, they are not qualified to hold anyone, and they should be held to account. And there are good reasons why the joint task force should be reined in. First, reining it in to stop its impunity is the right thing to do. But reining it in alone is insufficient: an investigation must be conducted to determine whether 3,335 persons or, indeed, how many have been killed and dumped at the Abacha hospital, how many at the other remaining Borno hospitals, who are responsible for the cold-blooded murder and what is to be done to them. Second, if this is not done, it will be repeated and will become the national norm. Third, in addition, if this is not done, it may lead to a backlash from a disaffected population that is already also disgruntled on another count. Fourth, if the government doesn’t do anything about it, it has in effect given its own approval of what is happening, and the people can then reach their own conclusions.
Nigeria holds periodic elections every four years—even if what eventually takes place is rigging and not an election, at least the nation appreciates the necessity for keeping up appearances. It makes no such pretences for entrenching the rule of law, which is probably democracy’s single greatest gift to governance. And because the nation has no rule of law, it has no rule and it has no law.
The concept of the rule of law is a fundamental requirement of any just society that wishes to curb arbitrariness in governance and put effective limits on the exercise of state power by the agents of government. In a society with the rule of law, everyone has the right to equal protection of the law and enjoys the right to due process and a fair trial; and rules, regulations and procedures for the enforcement of all laws must be legal, explicit and specified.
 While the declaration of an emergency can alter some legal issues on the ground, and be used as a rationale for suspending even some of the rights guaranteed under the constitution, it ought never to be used to abbreviate the non-derogable rights of the people. The declaration of an emergency by the president should not be used as a blank cheque to cover every manner of atrocity that may be committed by the security forces against a defenceless people. Certainly, a declaration of emergency should never be used as an excuse or justification for murder; and while the terrain may then be difficult to operate in, no one ever said it would be easy.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and only right way to go is the legal one. If the nation and especially its leading operatives and those who work at their instructions, have no time to obey the nation’s laws, they should stop deceiving themselves that they are running a democracy. The gap between rhetoric and practice is so obvious and ever so wide.
While the whole world is going towards the perfection of the rituals of democracy with varying degrees of sincerity, seriousness and success, successive Nigerian governments have been pushing the country headlong towards the perfection of their abuse. In place of credible election, this government gives the country transparent rigging; in place of the rule of law and equality before it, it puts in place a regime of impunity and arbitrariness; its judiciary becomes not the last refuge of the common man, but the last refuse bin into which his rights and freedoms are dumped; its legislative arm doesn’t make laws, it mocks them—and the people; and in place of transparency, accountability and openness, the executive arm becomes the long arm of corruption.
All the three arms are leprous. Everyone is in the know. But everybody pretends. But something must give. If the people of Nigeria are really serious about entrenching the culture of democracy in their land, they must struggle for it, against their leaders, against themselves and against every possible national tormentor—and be seen to be doing so—with others defending it with eternal vigilance; and, along the way, they cannot deny members of any class, especially the suspects in their midst, the chance to realise the promise of democracy—of those inalienable freedoms and inviolable rights—in their lives.
Any person accused, no matter how heinous the crime and no matter how strong and overwhelming the circumstantial evidence, must be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and have his personal safety guaranteed. The nation must insist on this minimum and never allow the fear, impatience and incompetence of soldiers and other security operatives change it; and go on to declare enemy all the suspects before them, and declare all suspects guilty before judgment, which they then go ahead to execute extrajudicially, simply because the nation will not ask any questions afterwards.
While the clear and present danger that the release of some or perhaps most of the detainees will cause may be used to justify continued detention without the right of habeas corpus, this cannot be legally defended as an absolute right; because there is always the danger that due to the indiscriminate manner in which frightened members of the joint task force bundle into interminable detention many persons unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, many innocent people languish in their dungeons.
But despite how horrific it may sound, it is better that a Boko Haram adherent be set free than that an innocent person be killed; but even in the case of confirmed members of Boko Haram, the soldiers have no right to kill them without the benefit of due process. Insisting on due process and the rule of law for detainees is no defence for Boko Haram; it is the defence of the system and the rights of all members of this society. If detainees are thought to constitute a danger to society, it may be reasonable to seek to keep them confined until they pose no danger to society; but this is a decision that soldiers have no right to make without proper investigation. In order to do this, there must be a good enough process for sifting through detainees to determine those who are innocent and those who may have a case to answer.
No doubt, members of Boko Haram have carried out and owned up to a multiplicity of attacks on institutions and exploded IED’s and detonated bombs in churches and towns, and caused an extensive chain of tragedies that might turn this nation impervious to what is happening to detainees held in its name today. If it does, it will be quite unfortunate for a number of reasons. One, planned blind comeuppance mere catharsis gives; it doesn’t justice guarantee. Two, not all those being held are members of Boko Haram. Three, even those proved to be members must be given the benefit of a fair trial. Four, if the nation can’t guarantee them this minimum, it has then descended to their level and it should stop criticising them.
If the nation guarantees them this, only then will it be guaranteeing it for everyone. And the rule of law has three principles—equality before the law, equal access to it by all and the right to a fair and timely trial for everyone. If today they deny it for Boko Haram and come for them; tomorrow, they will deny it to you and come for you.