By Nwamaka Ejebe

"Failure to advance the aims and objectives of the Human Rights Council collectively by all nations, all peoples and all institutions will be a colossal failure of humanity to protect its own dignity and rights under the rule of law and agreed norms and practices.…the Council should per force continue to direct its gaze and its search light on actions of states to ensure that they abide by all their commitments.”

-Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi, Nigeria's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva & Chair of the Human Rights Council (June 19, 2008)

Introduction

Nigerian federal government officials must reexamine their conception of human rights and the role it plays in shaping foreign policy and spurring economic development. While the federal government should already by committed to securing the human rights of its citizens, officials should also be aware that the government needs efficient human rights reforms in order to achieve its foreign policy and economic objectives. While leaders have held on to old perceptions that domestic human rights abuses can be tolerated in light of other foreign policy achievements, the global political context has changed and a robust human rights record is now needed to enter the club of influential states.

LINKS

v Introduction

v Part 1: Universal Periodic Review—Effectively Highlighting Human Rights Abuses

v Part 2: Nigeria’s Dismal Human Rights Record

v Part 3: What else is at stake?

v Conclusion

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROJECT - CRP

35, Kwame Nkrumah Crescent, Asokoro Crescent,

P.O Box 4576, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria

The human rights record of an individual State now has tangible political weight.^ⁱⁱ In 1999, when writing about the foreign policy direction of the new administration, Dr. Okpokpo explained, “… gone are the days when any ruler could sit down within the boundaries of his country and treat citizens as he liked without reaction from the international community. […] Henceforth, democracy and human rights, which in the recent past were considered in law and international relations as purely internal affairs, are becoming important determinants in foreign policy.”^ⁱⁱⁱ True in 1999, Okpokpo’s analysis is even more cogent today. Given Nigeria’s aspirations for greater regional and global leadership, it is imperative that government officials use this upcoming UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review to establish Nigeria as a State that is seriously committed to the human rights of its citizens. Part I of this Note gives a brief history of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process and argues that unlike previous UN human rights protection mechanisms, UPR will highlight Nigeria’s human rights successes and failures in a very public and critical light. Part II explains that unless the Nigerian federal government starts a process of comprehensive reforms the UPR process will reinforce the perception that Nigeria is a flagrant human rights abuser. Part III argues that this branding will undermine the government’s ability to achieve vital foreign policy and economic objectives. And the Note concludes with a call to action.

Part 1: Universal Periodic Review—Effectively Highlighting Human Rights Abuses

In 2006 the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) established the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism to review every four years the fulfillment by all UN Member States of their human rights obligations and commitments. General Assembly Resolution A/60/251, which created the HRC, mandated the Council to “undertake a universal periodic review [UPR], based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States.” ^{^iv} Discharging this mandate in June 2007, the Council adopted Resolution 5/1, which laid out the obj ectives and procedures of the review process.^v The objectives of the review were multi-fold. The purpose was first and foremost to improve the human rights situation on the ground. The UPR process was also designed to access the fulfillment of each State’s human rights obligations, enhance each State’s capacity to meet those obligations, share best practices among States and other stakeholders, support cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights, and encourage full cooperation and engagement with the Council, other human rights bodies and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.^{^vi}

The Human Rights Council and the UPR system replaced the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was mired by politicalization and selectivity.^{^vii} The structure and the history of the Commission decreased its ability to effectively carry out its mandate of promoting and protecting human rights and responding to specific human rights violations.^{^viii} In constructing a new body, the General Assembly endeavored not to repeat the mistakes of the past and created an organization that functions effectively and efficiently.^{^ix} Under this process, for the first time, the human rights records of all U.N. Member States regardless of geopolitical influence, population size, military or financial importance will be regularly examined through a rigorous and public process.

The UPR process began this year and to date thirty-two countries have been reviewed. As a UN Member and party to a number of human rights treaties and conventions, Nigeria is scheduled for a review, which will take place in the first quarter of 2009.

During Nigeria’s review, the forty-seven member states of the UPR Working Group will evaluate Nigeria’s human rights record based on submissions made by the Nigerian government,

the National Human Right Commission, civil society organizations, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The UPR process, unlike any other mechanism organized by the newly formed Human Rights Council or its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, will draw global attention at one point in time to the complete human rights record of a single State.

Although still in its initial stages, the review has already proven its ability to effectively spotlight the human rights successes and failures of a State. During UPR’s inaugural sessions, it became abundantly clear that Working Group members use the session as an opportunity to ask tough questions and to get an accurate sense of the reviewing State’s record. The experience of the first two sessions illustrate that Working Group members:

 Ask about specific social programs, new laws and pieces of legislation. ^{^x}

 Ask for details about program successes, effective implementation, enforcement and steps forward.^{^xi}

 Request more information and statistics about particular human rights abuses.^{^xii}

 Take the shadow reports written by civil society member seriously and rely on them during the session.^{^xiii}

In sum, the working group session is a rigorous, comprehensive and close examination of a nation’s human rights record. Once described by a government official as an “electronic lynching,” the review process has revealed itself as a troublesome mechanism for governments with something to hide. Government platitudes about their belief in human rights or vague policy objectives are not enough to placate the concerns of such scrutiny. Reviewing States that could point to new legislation and concrete statistics that reflected improvement in their record have fared better than those that could not.^{^xiv}

In 2009, Nigeria’s human record will be laid bare on the world stage. Nigerian officials will be asked to account for the nation’s human rights abuses and the government’s failure to implement long-standing reforms. Therefore, the Nigerian federal government has a stark choice—it can continue business as usual and fail to engage with Nigeria’s most pressing human rights concerns or it can see the UPR process as a chance to revitalize Nigeria’s commitment to human rights and to push for a series of reforms.

Part 2: Nigeria’s Dismal Human Rights Record

Without engaging in new reforms, the UPR process will reveal Nigeria as flagrant abuser of its human rights obligations. The Nigerian government has committed a number of human rights violations that are well documented and undoubtedly will be discussed during the Working Group’s session. Some of these human rights abuses include arbitrary arrest and prolonged pre-trial detention, inhumane prison conditions, extrajudicial killings and torture by security forces, inadequate and unaffordable housing, forced evictions, poor healthcare services and discrimination against women. Despite President Yar’Adua’s consistent promises of forwarding the “rule of law” in Nigeria, Nigeria’s main human rights challenges — which include impunity for perpetrators of political violence and gross state corruption — expose the failure of his promises.

Impunity for political violence

Nigeria is troubled with impunity granted to security forces, government officials and politicians engaging in political violence. Politicians and political elites routinely and openly use violence, in the form of gang warfare, assassinations and physical intimidation to forward their political ends.^{^xv} The sponsors and perpetrators of this violence frequently receive complete impunity from police and government officials. Caught in the crossfire of this violent political system are the basic security and political participation rights of ordinary Nigerians. Political violence and the subsequent immunity for its perpetrators exposes Nigerians to physical assault and death, undermines faith in the criminal justice system, deters meaningful political participation and destroys the likelihood of free and fair elections. The 2007 elections, which lead to a reported number of 280 deaths, exposed this ongoing problem in a dramatic and tragic fashion.^{^xvi} As Human Rights Watch has recently noted, “Nigeria’s failed 2007 polls cast a harsh and very public light on patterns of violence, corruption and outright criminality that have come to characterize Nigeria’s political system—and on the extent to which officials and institutions at all levels of government accept, encourage and participate in those abuses.”^{^xvii}

Impunity for Gross Corruption and Spoliation

Closely connected to the issue of impunity for political violence is the impunity for high-ranking government officials guilty of state corruption and spoliation of natural resources. Freedom from spoliation and corruption is a human right and protection from spoliation and corruption is also necessary in order to enable people to fully enjoy other human rights.^{^xviii}The funneling of public wealth into private hands deprives citizens of resources and basic services that the government has an obligation to provide.^{^xix}Nigeria is estimated to have earned over US $233 billion dollars in oil revenue since 1999, but due to corruption and mismanagement of public funds many Nigerian citizens still lack basic education and health care services.^{^xx}Although the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arrested and detained numerous government officials on corruption charges, the UPR process will reveal that the EFCC as is currently operated is hardly a panacea for Nigeria’s corruption problems. Critics have charged that EFCC investigations are politically motivated with the Commission singling out political opponents of the administration. Since the inception of the present administration, the EFCC has yet to convincingly demonstrate an intention to move away from this perception.

The fatal combination of political violence and gross state corruption has expressed itself in the Niger Delta region, the starkest example of Nigeria’s human rights failures. In 2007 armed gangs and security forces in the Niger Delta region murdered numerous civilians. Much of the insecurity that plagues the Delta is directly related to failures of governance. Despite significant budget increases caused by rising oil prices, federal, state, and local governments have made no effective effort to address the overwhelming poverty and environmental degradation that drives political discontent in the region. Instead, many regional politicians have been directly implicated in sponsoring and arming militia groups that have carried out violent abuses. His Excellency is failing to provide essential conditions for the “rule of law” to prevail, namely a fair legal framework, full and equal protection under law, access to justice and a reformed police institution.

Part 3: What else is at stake?

The failure of government to act constitutes a sad reality for the millions of Nigerians robbed of their electoral rights, suffering from easily curable diseases or languishing in prisons. While the government must reform for the good of its citizens, leaders must also recognize they risk a number of vital foreign policy and economic objectives by ignoring their human rights record and the UPR process. For example, if Nigeria is revealed as a flagrant human rights abuser this will significantly jeopardize the country’s chances for a new permanent seat with the United Nations Security Council and also undermine attempts to secure Nigeria’s economic development goals.

United Nations Security Council

Top Nigerian officials have made it clear that Nigeria strongly desires a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) once the council expands.^{^xxi} While the exact number of new seats and the extension of the veto privileges is still widely contested, most proposed expansion models have provisions for at least one Africa group seat.^{^xxii} Since Africa is the only region currently without a permanent seat on the Council, most Security Council members have expressed their strong desire to see an African addition.^{^xxiii} While one seat is assured to go to a member of the Africa group, Nigeria is in tight competition with a number of nations including South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Kenya, Libya and Senegal.^{^xxiv} In 2005, Secretary General Kofi Annan established a high-level panel to consider a broad variety of U.N. reforms. In their final report, the panel established criteria for determining which states should be considered for a new Security Council seat. In the report the panel explained that the new members of the UNSC should be selected on the basis of their contribution to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically.^{^xxv} In making its claim on a new seat, Nigerian officials have relied almost exclusively on Nigeria’s military credentials. Nigerian officials have argued that since the country has consistently supplied troops for U.N. peacekeeping missions Nigeria should be assured a seat. According to a high-ranking member of Nigeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Nigeria has been contributing to the maintenance of the UN intervention forces even before her independence in 1960."^{^xxvi}

While this argument certainly has merit, it is short sighted for two reasons. First, other African contenders have made significant contributions militarily to the UN and have also played a role in increasing regional stability. As of May 2008, Nigeria is the African nation with the highest levels of troops in United Nations peacekeeping efforts. Ranked 4^thoverall, Nigeria currently supports the UN’s security goals in a significant manner. ^{^xxvii}Nevertheless other African nations also make significant contributions. For total peacekeepers deployed on UN missions, Senegal is currently ranked 11^th, South Africa 14^th, Egypt 17^th, and Kenya 23^rd. While Nigerian troops have been critical in resolving conflicts in Sao Tome and Principe, Togo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and leading the way forward in the present Sudan conflict, South Africa, Kenya and Senegal likewise have also played crucial roles in resolving disputes around the Continent. ^{^xxviii}

The sole focus on Nigeria’s military contributions is also flawed because the criteria involved in selecting the new Security Council members will include an evaluation of the prospective State’s human rights record in addition to their contributions to the UN militarily.

One of the central missions of the United Nations and the Security Council is to protect human rights. According to the opening words of the charter, the United Nations was created in part to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.”

A real respect for human rights of their own citizens is therefore a necessary prerequisite for such an influential position in the UN system. The United States, a key player in the selection process, has gone on record citing the importance of human rights in the selection process.^{^xxix}

Any serious contender for a Security Council seat must have contributed positively to practices of peace, justice, good governance and development. And under these criteria Nigeria falls short compared to a number of its other contenders. For example, in the area of development, according to the United Nations Human Development Index, Nigeria is ranked 158th out of 177 countries, the lowest of any of the other African nation vying for a permanent UNSC seat.^{^xxx} As the UNDP recently recognized, the poverty index in Nigeria continues to increase despite the “huge financial resources” available at all levels of government in Nigeria. ^{^xxxi} The existence of vast material resources but little development cements in the minds of observers, in Nigeria, Africa, and beyond, that the Nigeria government is the hallmark for corruption.

In fact, Nigeria is consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. According to Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perception Index, Nigeria is 147^th out of 179 countries, besting only Kenya (150^th) in the group of contending African states. ^{^xxxii}

While all countries struggle to meet their human rights obligations, Nigeria has maintained a reputation of not progressing as quickly as some other African nations. Nigeria must become a State committed to improving its human rights record if the country hopes to achieve a UNSC permanent seat. Any change to the composition of the Security Council can only be made through an amendment of the UN Charter, which requires a two-thirds majority of the 192-member General Assembly. Although well respected for its willingness to be a regional dispute resolver, the Nigerian government is sadly regarded in Africa and beyond as a government that cares very little for its people. If this perception persists, Nigeria will hardly receive the requisite support to achieve a permanent seat at the Security Council. The Universal Period Review is a unique opportunity for federal government officials to confirm this perception or change it.

Economic Development Agenda

A label as a human rights abuser would also decrease the opportunities Nigeria needs for economic development. Alfredo Sfeir-Younis has argued, “ensuring human rights is a vital step toward economic development because when people are denied their rights, it often results in social instability, war and other conflicts, which have vast economic consequences.”^{^xxxiii}There is a growing consensus among the Nigerian government and business leaders that foreign and greater local investment is essential to realizing Nigeria's vast economic potential. Foreign and domestic companies interested in long-term investment, especially those that use locally available raw materials, see opportunities in Nigeria’s large national market. However, investors have been hesitant to invest in Nigeria in part because of its human rights record. Government officials must be aware that sustaining democratic principles, enhancing security for life and property, and maintaining the human rights of it citizens are necessary for the country to attract investment.

CONCLUSION
As these two examples illustrate, the protection of human rights can no longer be viewed as a secondary concern of a State committed to an ambitious foreign policy and economic agenda. To become a serious global actor, governments must have a record of protecting their citizen’s fundamental human rights. During this Universal Periodic Review process, Nigeria has the opportunity to either cement its international image as a nation that supports corruption and political violence over the civil liberties, health and economic prospects of its citizens, or offer the world a new vision. This new vision will require the commitment of reformers in the federal government and members of civil society. According to the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, the Nigerian government is strongly encouraged to prepare their UPR report “through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders,” a category which includes civil society organizations. A coalition of human rights civil society organizations is already coming together to demand that Nigeria use this review process to engage in serious, effective, and immediate reforms to a number of state institutions and practices.^{^xxxiv}The federal government must take hold of this opportunity and begin a broad national consultation process that will lead to an accurate, comprehensive and reliable UPR report and a series of government reforms. The time to act is now. With Nigeria chairing the Human Rights Council and the country’s review in just a few months, the gaze of the world is now fixed on Nigeria. How will she respond?
*Footnotes*
ⁱ United Nations Radio, Human Rights Council Elects New President (June 19, 2008) http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/9921.html ⁱⁱSee Robert Howse & Makau Mutua, Protecting Human Rights in a Global Economy Challenges for the World Trade Organization (2000). ⁱⁱⁱ Okpokpo, E. v3i3a16.htm 1999. The Challenges facing Nigeria's Foreign Policy in the Next Millenium 3(2): 4. http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v3/ ^iv General Assembly Resolution A/60/251 (March 15, 2006). ^v See Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 (June 18, 2007) ^vi Id. ^vii Neana Yeaoh, The Establishment of the Human Rights Council, 70-80. ^viii Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A more secure world: our shared responsibility, 282-86, UN. Doc. A/59/565 (Dec. 1, 2004). ^ix Felice D. Gaer, PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: Scrutinizing Countries: The Challenge of Universal Review 13 Hum. Rts. Br. 9, Spring, 2006. ^x See Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ghana, 18, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/36 (May 28, 2008). Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: India, 33, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/26, May 23, 2008. ^xi For example, during Ghana’s review the United States of America noted that in 2007 Ghana amended their Criminal Code to criminalize the practice of female genital mutilation and also passed domestic violence legislation and they wanted to know what measures the government had taken to ensure the enforcement of those laws. Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ghana, 48, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/36 (May 28, 2008). ^xii Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: India, 25, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/26, May 23, 2008. (“The United Kingdom asked for additional information on (a) reports of attacks against persons from religious or other minorities, in particular in Orissa State; (b) steps to implement treaty body recommendations on the Armed Forced Special Powers Act; (c) anti- conversion legislation; and (c) the communal violence crimes bill.” ). ^xiii Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: India, 27, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/26, May 23, 2008. ^xiv For example, India was able to effectively highlight their recently passed Right to Information Act and noted it was a great legislative victory for the people of India. Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: India, 83, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/26, May 23, 2008. ^xv Human Rights Watch, Criminal Politics: Violence, “Godfathers” and Corruption in Nigeria, Vol. 19 No. 16 (A), pg. 17 October 2007. 77 ^xvi United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Nigeria: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2007, March 11, 2008 available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100498.htm. ^xvii Human Rights Watch, Criminal Politics: Violence, “Godfathers” and Corruption in Nigeria, Vol. ^xviii Freedom from spoliation and state corruption is a well-established human right. Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that all those living in signatory states “shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources,” that “dispossessed people have a right to recovery of the property and compensation,” and that each state has the obligation to avoid “foreign economic exploitation” that would prevent its people from “fully benefit[ing] from the advantages derived from their national resources.” African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, art. 21, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982) (entered into force Oct. 21, 1986). Similarly, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights provide: “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources . . . based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, art. 1(2), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force Jan. 3, 1976); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, art. 1(2), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976). ^xix The African Charter protects the rights to health, education, and development. African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, arts. 22, 16, 17(1), O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982) (entered into force Oct. 21, 1986). ^xx Human Rights Watch, Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in Nigeria 2007 available at http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/nigeri17934.htm. ^xxiJibrin Abubakar, Egypt Slams Nigeria over UN Seat, Daily Trust (July 28, 2005). xxii Jonas von Freiesleben, Reform of the Security Council, 8-17. ^xxiii Lalit K Jha , UN Backs India for UNSC Seat, NDTV (November 13, 2007). http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster1/2007/1113permindia.htm ^xxiv Dr. Wafula Okumu, Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News (April 28, 2005). ^xxv Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A more secure world: our shared responsibility, 249, UN. Doc. A/59/565 (Dec. 1, 2004). ^xxvi Jibrin Abubakar, Egypt Slams Nigeria over UN Seat, Daily Trust (July 28, 2005). ^xxvii United Nations peace keeping: Monthly Summary of Contributors of Military and Civilian Policy Personal Peace and Security Section of the Department of Public Information http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/ ^xxviii Dr. Wafula Okumu, Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News (April 28, 2005), Jibrin Abubakar, Egypt Slams Nigeria over UN Seat, Daily Trust (July 28, 2005). ^xxix United States Department of State Press Release, U.S. Priorities for a Stronger More Effective United Nations, 6/17/05 ^xxx United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2007/2008 Human Development Index Rankings available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ ^xxxi Low Quality of Life in Nigeria Worries UNDP, Financial Times Nigeria (June 10, 2008) http://www.financialnigeria.com/NEWS/news_item_detail.aspx?item=2352 ^xxxii Transparency International 2007 Corruption Perception Index ^xxxiii Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Human Rights Must Be a Consideration for Economic Development Organizations ^xxxiv Guardian (June 4, 2008).

Constitutional Rights Projects (CRP) asserts its copyright to this document, but permits photocopy or reproduction of extracts, provided due acknowledgement is given and a copy of the publication carrying the extracts is sent to CRP Address.

Constitutional Rights Project

35, Kwame Nkrumah Crescent, Asokoro Crescent,

P.O Box 4576, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria

E-mail:crp@crpnigeria.org,

Web site: www.crpnigeria.org