The Acts of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-Treatment of Citizens by Some Institutions and the Role of Criminal Justice System in Nigeria
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 5, No. 10(1); October 2015 The Acts of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-Treatment of Citizens by Some Institutions and the Role of Criminal Justice System in Nigeria PIWUNA M. G. LL.M, BL, PGDM Abstract The campaign against torture and other forms of ill-treatment as a social vice and crime against humanity has been persistent since the post second world war era. Indeed there was a plethora of torture incidences during the Second World War; chief amongst them is the holocaust. Unfortunately, this regime of torture has been permitted into the Criminal Justice System by law enforcement agencies in virtually every nation. Although universally, torture is generally accepted as repugnant to natural justice, yet there appears to be nothing to show that torture is on the decrease, rather it would appear that state sponsored torture continues to go unabated. This is so despite the enactment of numerous legislations and treaties by both international and national concerns, condemning the use of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in criminal justice administration. This paper examines the act of torture, reasons that occasion or warrant torture and the effects on humanity. Some of the international human rights instruments and the national human rights prohibiting torture are also examined to establish the gap between the provisions and the practical applicability and the protection of citizens against torture in Nigeria. Introduction: Torture and other forms of ill-treatment have been recognized as one of the worst crimes against humanity and violation of human rights. The nature of torture and its impact is best captured in this statement; “Torture is not only one of the vilest act that one human being can inflict on another, it is also among the most insidious of all human rights violations. All too often, it is veiled in secrecy, except from those who cowering in nearby prison cells, might be its next victims. Victims are often too ashamed or traumatized to speak out, or face further peril if they do; often, they die from their wounds. Perpetrators, meanwhile, are shielded by conspiracies of silence and by the legal and political machinery of States that resorts to torture.”1 Nothing captures the practice of torture better than the above statement. Indeed, the helplessness of victims has continued unabated. The act of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is often perpetrated by organs of the state such as the military, the police, the prisons and other law enforcement officials. In fact, it is believed that once a person or state is willing to administer torture on an individual; there is no limit at which the direct perpetrator would not go. It is important to know that these organs of the state that perpetrate the act of torture and other forms of ill-treatment every now and then are primarily saddled with the responsibility of upholding the law of the land and the rights of its citizenry. Instead, they routinely flout the law and also undermine the whole Criminal Justice System. Indicative of this pervasive fact is the Amnesty International Report in more than 150 countries. According to the report, in more than 70 countries, torture was widespread or persistent; in more than 80 countries, people reportedly die as a result of torture2. Hence, states are under responsibility to pursue cases of torture against perpetrators. At different times in history, torture has been practiced. For instance, in the primitive periods and during the time of slave trade, torture and other forms of ill-treatment were considered an acceptable practice3. Piwuna, Morgan Goson, (Master of Laws, Barrister at Law, Postgraduate Diploma in Management) Lecturer 1 Department of Property and Commercial Law, Faculty of Law, University of Jos. (PhD Candidate University of Jos). 1 Statement made by United Nations Secretary-General, Koffi Annan on the International Day in Support of Victims of torture on June 26, 2000; Quoted in Study on the Domestication of the UNCAT by Legal Research Initiative (LRI) 2 Amnesty International: Take a Step up Stamp out Torture; October 18, 2000. 3 J. Mayerfield: Suffering and Moral Responsibility; Oxford University Press, 1999, at pg. 4. 208 ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) ©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com It was legally recognized and regularly carried out for specific purposes such as capital punishment and as a form of discipline for recalcitrant slaves4. Also in Europe, the practice of torture in the courts persisted until laws abolishing it were passed in the eighteenth century. During these periods, confession was regarded as “queen of proofs”5. Also, history has revealed that in several ancient civilizations and in late medieval Europe, torture within prescribed limits was an accepted practice. Hence, it is difficult to believe that people who inflicted torture in such communities did nothing wrong. Again in Europe, crime was categorized into dangerous and non-dangerous crimes. Torture applied to dangerous crimes alone. This is because dangerous crimes were considered as extraordinary situations and in order to deal with these situations, governments were obliged to put in place extraordinary measures to protect the citizens6. After the end of the eighteenth century, torture acquired a universal recognition as a violation of human rights. Torture has also acquired international recognition as one of the worst violations of human rights, as well as, a crime against humanity. But despite this recognition both in national Constitutions and in widely ratified international Treaties, citizens have not been able to realize the full essence of their humanity since their rights are grossly abused and they are dehumanized by overzealous state organs licensed to wreck havoc on defenceless citizens. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment are violations of human rights and it is practiced in many countries. They are strictly prohibited by a number of international7, regional8, sub region and national human rights instruments9, including the laws of war10. The general aim of torture is to destroy a human being11, destroy his/her dignity and self-esteem12. Other reasons for torture include; extracting confessions, to gather information, as a method of sadistic punishment, to retain control by the state by means of intimidation and subjugation, or merely that the person being tortured belonged to a separate group13. By its very nature, torture tends to exclude any form of moderation, refinement or limitation. The prohibition of torture enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society14. Its prohibition in national constitution commits the country, specifically its law enforcement officers to perform their duties with due regard to the essential dignity of every human being. The provisions of the Constitution are binding on all the citizens and must be obeyed by all; whether government officials or non- governmental officials. Similarly, various international, regional and national human rights instruments prohibiting torture must be complied with, particularly, those that relate to the protection of fundamental human rights. Violation of prohibited acts of torture must be penalized through the invocation of various enforcement mechanisms. In Nigeria, eradicating the practice of torture has been bedeviled by several challenges ranging from administrative and judicial procedures to legislative inadequacies. The Nigerian policy play a very important role in criminal justice administration and therefore, it is expected to ensure respect for, and protection of the rights and freedom of individuals within their jurisdiction. 4 M. D. Evans, and R. Morgan: Preventing Torture, A Study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading or Punishment; Oxford University Press; 1998 at pg. 5. 5 Odeku Main Thesis. PDF at pg 5. 6 E. Peters: Torture, Expanded Edition (University of Pennsylvania Press) 1996 at pg. 6. 7 For instance, see United Nations Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. 8 See African Charter on Human and Peoples Right. Article 5 Prohibits Torture. Also, see Article 5 para. 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 9 Section 34(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. 10 The Four Geneva Convention of 1949 namely: Geneva Convention 1 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the wounded and the Sick of Armed Forces in the Field; Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of wounded, sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Seal Geneva Convention III, Relating to the Prisoners of War and Geneva Convention IV, Relating to the Protection of Persons in Time of War (1949). 11 M. Kosma and J. Cantell: Neoconservative Ideology and the Use of Torture in Global War on Terror. Pg. 81 12 Miller, D.J.: Holding States to their Convention Obligation: the United Nations Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and the need for Broad Interpretation of State Action; Vol. 17, No. 2, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 2003 at pg. 229. 13 Legal Research Initiative (LRI): Study on the Domestication of the United Nations Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. 14 Nihal Jayawckrama: The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law, National, Regional and International Jurisprudence, at pg. 298; also Chadalv, United Kingdom (1996) EHRR at pg. 456. 209 International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 5, No. 10(1); October 2015 The extent to which some of this obligations are met depends largely, therefore on the attitude and behaviours of police officials towards those individuals and groups with whom they interact with in the policing process at a personal level and on a daily basis15. We shall therefore examine the activities of the police, and importantly those of other law enforcement agencies. It is a shocking discovery that so far into the fight or campaign for the eradication of torture and ill-treatment, there is no statutory definition of torture found in any of our local statute or enactments.