In an era of escalation in terrorism and terrorist related criminalities, the international system continues to innovate on how best to contain its scourge, particularly within the confines of established democratic norms. As a response to Security Council resolution 1373 adopted on 28 September 2001, United Nations (UN) member states began to craft domestic counterterrorism legislations to criminalise terrorist activities on their home-soil, as well as extraterritorially. Responding as other nations, Nigeria enacted the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013. However, the Act and others like it, have thrown up troubling questions about weaponization of the war on terror, and the need to balance the war with the protection of human rights. This article examines the continued sidestepping of human rights norms in the war against terror. It presents this conflict within the context of Nigeria’s domestic counterterrorism law, highlighting some dangerous provisions in the Act which directly impugns on its obligation under International Human Rights Law (IHRL). It advocates an urgent review in the Act that will reflect the current mood of the UN human rights system, as well as the country’s obligation under IHRL
The major objective of this Article is to examine the extent to which the accountability mechanism under international law is sensitive, and responsive to the challenges of accessing domestic remedies by victims of human rights violations in Nigeria’s counterinsurgency against Boko Haram. It explores the extent to which the current framework has enabled and facilitated efforts of victims in this wise especially those of poor, weak and defenceless victims. In this article, we make a case that the inability of international law under the auspices of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to bring the perpetrators of heinous abuses in the counterinsurgency operations to book, is as a result of the deficiency in the complaint procedure, which is largely state-centred and a gap in the current framework. This article therefore proposes the view that remedies for victims in this conflict can be better realised, not just by viewing them as obligations that States are encouraged to fulfil within the confines of their sovereign status, but more importantly by crafting them within a framework of supranational legitimacy in which States can indeed be held accountable and compelled to meet their obligations. Keywords: Accountability, Human Rights, Boko Haram, Counterinsurgency, Optional Protocol. AbstrakTujuan utama dari artikel ini adalah untuk mengkaji sejauh mana mekanisme pertanggungjawaban dalam hukum pidana internasional dapat mengakomodasi tantangan dalam mengakses sistem kompensasi domestik bagi korban pelanggaran HAM dalam konflik pemberontakan Boko Haram di Nigeria. Tulisan ini menyelidiki bagaimana kerangka kerja yang ada saat ini memberikan ruang dan memfasilitasi korban dalam aspek tersebut, terutama mereka yang miskin dan rentan. Tulisan ini berargumen bahwa ketidakmampuan hukum internasional untuk membawa para pelaku kejahatan HAM berat dalam pemberontakan tersebut untuk bertanggung jawab atas kejahatan mereka terhadap korban adalah hasil dari kecacatan dalam prosedur pengaduan hukum pidana internasional, yang memang terfokus pada negara dan kurang mengakomodasi jenis-jenis konflik modern. Maka dari itu, tulisan ini mengusulkan perspektif dimana kompensasi kepada korban dari konflik pemberontakan ini dapat direalisasikan dengan lebih baik, dengan cara memasukkan pertanggungjawaban ini ke dalam legitimasi supranasional sehingga negara dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban dan diwajibkan untuk memenuhi kewajiban mereka. Kata Kunci: Pertanggungjawaban, Hak Asasi Manusia, Boko Haram, Pemberontakan, Protokol Pilihan
Law enforcement is the pivot on which every society and institution stands and essentially survives on. An institution where enforcement of the law is in abeyance will surely not endure, as whatever goals are set is condemned to smoulder in total indiscipline. Without doubt, no institution would want to set off on that footing. However, where law enforcement takes place in a special institution like the Military, its deployment is bound to raise deep questions regarding the Constitutional rights of the accused persons. Over the years, the Nigerian Military appear to have been caught in this miasma in which the Constitutional rights of its service men has remained trapped in the notion of upholding Military discipline. It is to this end that this paper appraises the question of law enforcement in the Nigerian Military, querying its attitude towards the safeguards of these rights, and accordingly building a case for a new and better regime, in which Constitutional rights of Service personnel are not only guaranteed, but regarded as pre-eminent.
Since countries began vaccine rollout against the COVID-19 virus, all hands have been on deck to vaccinate as many people as possible, in order to achieve a high vaccine uptake towards herd immunity. Though slow, Nigeria just like other countries, has been vaccinating its citizens. However, the vaccination effort, like similar programmes has continued to encounter the familiar foe of vaccine hesitancy. Where vaccine hesitancy becomes an issue, a likely response is for the government to explore the option of mandatory vaccination, either directly or indirectly, with the goal of compelling citizens to be vaccinated, or suffer some jeopardy. Such a move is bound to touch on core human rights, especially the right to personal autonomy. This article examines the extent to which a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination programme in Nigeria, conflicts with the citizen’s right to determine what should be done to his/her body. It concludes that rather than forcing vaccines on people, a better option is for government to gain the trust of the people, through multi-layered social engagements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.