FOI COUNSEL, RUDILAC LAUNCH ‘PRESIDENT’S NEWSLETTER’

FOI Counsel and Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre (RUDILAC) have launched the President’s Newsletter. The event took place on 29th day of September 2022 at John Odigie Oyegun Public Service Training Centre, Benin City.

This first edition of the quarterly Newsletter has the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola on its cover with the theme “Open Justice.” The edition evaluates the current position of Nigerian law with regards to public access and review of court room proceedings.

According to Mr. President Aigbokhan, the Editor-in-Chief, “This edition of the newsletter is to re-focus public participation in the judicial process and interrogate the link between ICT and the justice sector. This edition of the newsletter advocates for the court to create an Access to Information Policy as a way of strengthening proactive disclosure”.

The newsletter highlights stories like clamour for financial autonomy of the judiciary, ethnic dominance at appellate courts and dataset for open justice among others.

Some of the contributors include Hon. Justice Eseohe Ikpomwen (former Chief Judge of Edo State), Joseph Otteh of Access 2 Justice, Abbas Inuwa of transparenceIT and John Osawe.

Some of the dignitaries present at the launch include the Chief Judge of Edo Hon, Justice Joe Acha who was represented by Hon. Justice Peter Akhikhiero; veteran civic actor Comrade Austin Osakue; former EDOCSO helmsman, Com. Omobude Agho; Dr. Uyi Ojo of Environmental Rights Action (ERA); Prof. Carl Oshodin of Africa Industrialization Group; Mrs. Imuwaghen of John Odigie Oyegun Public Service Training Centre, and the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Communication, Mr. Solomon Imohiosen.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND LOCUS STANDI IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

BY JESSE NWAENYO

Environmental democracy involves a tripartite reinforcing right that, while independently important, operate best in combination: the ability for people to freely access information on environmental quality and problems, to participate meaningfully in decision-making, and to seek enforcement of environmental laws or compensation for damages . This article seeks to explain the concept of environmental democracy and the importance thereof in preserving the environment and its components.

INTRODUCTION

The protection of our environment started in pre-colonial era when Africans protected their environment through observation of culture, norms and customs. The second phase was the period of the imperialist, when common law and English statutes were introduced to curb or prevent pollution of our environment. The emergence of the third era was marked by the toxic waste dumped in koko, a riverine town in Delta State (formerly Bendel State) in 1988, Nigeria for the first time got hints of the Harmful Toxic Waste Cargo from some Nigerian students studying in Italy through letters they sent to some media houses alerting them that the lethal cages carrying wastes rejected in Europe were being consigned to Nigeria under false inscriptions. The rest of this incident is now history, but it opened the eyes of Nigerians and the government on the need to put environmental law enforcement in proper shape. This third era marked Nigeria’s seriousness towards protecting her surroundings.

Environmental democracy is about government being transparent, accountable, and involving people in decisions that affect their environment.

Participation is central to the notion of environmental democracy. Public participation is necessary for the existence of a democratic society. It serves an educative function by teaching citizens to understand the difference between individual desire and common interest and equipping them with the knowledge and confidence needed to engage in participatory activities. In this sense, participation cultivates the very qualities necessary for it; the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so.

Worthy to note that humans are part of the society as well as other living creatures, which include plants and animals, this belief, is held by proponents of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics is a branch of ethics that studies the relation of human beings and the environment and how ethics play a role in this . In this regard, the bio-centric environmental philosophers consider all living things to have the same worth.

WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENT
Environment can be defined from a lay man perspective and equally from a broader view. The concept is very technical in scope and application. Bearing this in mind, it is not easy to arrive at a universal and generally accepted definition of the concept. Various scholars have made attempt to define the concept in different ways.

The word Environment is derived from the French word ‘Environner’ which means to ‘encircle or surround’. The first recorded usage of the word was by Thomas Carlyle in 1827 and in 1956.

Generally, it is defined as our surroundings especially material and spiritual influences which affect the growth, development and existence of living being. The United Nation Stockholm Conference on Human Development asserts ‘man is both creature and moulders’ of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth.

The National Environmental Standard and Regulation Enforcement Act defines ‘environment’ in the following perspectives; ‘Environment’ include water, air, land, animals living therein and in relationship exist among these or any of them .

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) defines environment as:
(a) The water
(b) Forest and wildlife
(c) All layers of the atmosphere
(d) All organic and in-organic matter and living organisms, and
(e) The interacting nature system that includes the component referred to in paragraph (a) – (d).

Environmental law therefore covers the whole universe including not only human beings but also plants, animals, forest shrubs, refuse, bacteria and insects.

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY

Democracy is derived from the Greek word demokratia, meaning “rule by the people.” It’s made up of two roots demos, meaning “the people,” and kratos, meaning ‘power.”

One belief that is foundational to democracy is the term isonomia, meaning “equality before the law.”

The term democracy in the practical sense implies a social partnership between the people and the government; the right of expression and recognition of the views of the people before the implementation of any government policy. In essence, the voice of the people is supreme in a democratic setting; consequently, the welfare of the people should be the supreme law: salus populi suprema lex esto.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY

Environmental democracy is the participation of citizens in planning processes with environmental effects and aims at mutual commitment by citizens and public authorities to change their behaviors in order to improve sustainable development.

At its core, environmental democracy involves three mutually reinforcing rights that, while independently important, operate best in combination: the ability for people to freely access information on environmental quality and problems, to participate meaningfully in decision-making, and to seek enforcement of environmental laws or compensation for damages.

Far too often, the public is not meaningfully engaged in decisions that could affect their health, livelihoods, and culture. These three key components – access to information, participation and justice – also known as “access rights” are reflected in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. They are at the heart of environmental democracy, embodying the procedural dimensions of the right to a healthy environment.

WHAT DOES ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY LOOK LIKE?

Several years ago, developers proposed a five-dam project on the Baker and Pascua Rivers in Patagonia, Chile. While they projected that the hydropower would produce 2,750 megawatts of power, the project would also flood 23 square miles of wilderness, jeopardizing the environment, local culture, and tourism of the region.

Citizens opposed the project, arguing that Chile’s energy needs could be met through less damaging projects, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy. Sometime in June 2014—after eight years of campaigning by the Patagonia Defense Council, a coalition of more than 70 domestic and international organizations and individuals—Chile’s Environment Minister, Pablo Badenier, revoked the permit. The advocacy of this coalition, which includes Access Initiative member FIMA, was credited by International Rivers as “perhaps the most important reason” for the reversal.

The success of this campaign is a powerful example of the importance of public participation in land-use decisions. Civil society raised concern over the impacts of the proposed dams on livelihoods and the environment, which ultimately created political opposition. However, far too often the public is not meaningfully engaged in these decisions. This is often due to weak laws that limit the public’s access to information, do not provide adequate public voice in decision-making, or provide no access to justice when environmental harms are committed. These issues are at the heart of environmental democracy—a key component in preserving the health of communities and the regions they call home.

WHY IS ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY IMPORTANT?

Environmental democracy is rooted in the idea that meaningful participation by the public is critical to ensuring that land and natural resource decisions adequately and equitably address citizens’ interests. Rather than setting a standard for what determines a good outcome, environmental democracy sets a standard for how decisions should be made.

UNDERSTANDING THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: INFORMATION, PARTICIPATION AND JUSTICE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

When well-designed and implemented, access-to-information laws require that governments and companies make information such as environmental impact assessments, development project plans, and pollution discharges freely available to the public. By being informed, the public can participate more effectively in decision-making and hold companies and governments accountable for actions that are not in accordance with the law. Information should not only be available, but accessible to the public through formats they can readily use—taking into account literacy, language, readability, use of technology, and more.

Making environmental information open and freely accessible can often be the foundation for change. The United States, for example, developed the first ever Pollutant Release Inventory (PRTR), called the Toxics Release Inventory, in 1986 following several environmental disasters including a chemical release from the Union Carbine plant in West Virginia in 1985. The TRI requires that certain industrial facilities annually submit data on the quantity of toxic chemicals they release. Since 1986, at least 50 countries have developed PRTRs or implemented pilot programs. While the US TRI certainly still has room for improvement, compelling companies to make this data public has helped reduced the incidence of toxic releases in the country.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation laws improve information flow between communities and government or private sector decision-makers. This exchange can help avoid unintended consequences, increase support for a decision, and lead to a more equitable distribution of costs and benefits. The public should be informed early in the decision-making process about opportunities to participate, such as through town hall meetings or community workshops. They also need to be provided with any information necessary to meaningfully engage—such as environmental impact assessments—and should be able to participate without incurring burdensome costs, such as traveling to a capital city. Participation is less meaningful when the public is merely informed of an upcoming decision and left with no opportunity to influence it.

One of the better-known public participation processes for the environment is through Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which in many countries require public consultations before the development of projects that will have environmental impacts. However, these consultations can vary widely in quality. When the public is given ample notice along with the necessary information to understand and participate meaningfully, these assessments can be effective ways to safeguard against environmental harms or to ensure that adequate compensation. On the other hand, public consultations that serve only to inform of a decision that has already been made undermine public trust, reduce legitimacy and stifle the flow of important information.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

When members of the public do lack access to information and participation, they should be able to exercise a right to seek justice—such as compensation or appealing a project. These accountability mechanisms should be independent and impartial, and ideally able to issue binding, enforceable decisions.

Environmental tribunals such as India’s National Green Tribunal (NGT) are good examples of mechanisms that provide access to justice. The NGT was established in 2010 in recognition of the large number of court cases involving environmental disputes. The tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases involving “substantial question[s] relating to [the] environment,” and is mandated to attempt to conclude a case within six months of the filing date. Between May 2011 and March 2014, the Tribunal has adjudicated 393 cases.

LOCUS STANDI IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES IN NIGERIA

The concept of locus standi is a development of case law. Essentially, it has been held to mean “standing to sue.” It is the legal capacity to institute or commence an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without let or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. The applicant must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit, which interest would be affected by the action or the damage or injury he would suffer as a result of the action.

In the case Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria it was held per Fatayi-Williams, CJN that:
“…the law is now well settled that the plaintiff will have locus standi in the matter only if he has a special legal right or alternatively, if he has a special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced, or where his interest is adversely affected. What constitutes a legal right, sufficient or special interest, or interest adversely affected, will of course, depend on the facts of each case.”

In the past, the Court adopted a restrictive approach to the issue of locus standi. However, in recent times, the attitude of the Court to locus standi in respect of Environmental matters has changed from a restrictive and technical approach to a liberal view.

In the case of the Registered Trustees of the Socio-economic Rights & Accountability Project Law Report (SERAPLR) & 10 Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Community Court of Justice (Abuja Division) in deciding whether non-governmental organizations can file complaint on human rights issues on behalf of vulnerable individuals and impoverished communities held that:
“With the same purpose to ease access to Justice on Human Rights issues by most vulnerable individuals and by impoverished communities, which most of the time, do not have means to lodge a complaint by themselves, in particular when the opposite party is a very powerful entity, the ECOWAS Court of justice has reiterated in many instances that, in case of serious human rights violation, a Non-Governmental Organization may enjoy standing to file a complaint on their behalf or to join them in the same complaint, even if the applicant has not been directly affected by the violations it is complaining of.” Per Ramos, J. [P.98] lines 15-30.

In the salutary case of Center for Oil Pollution Watch v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation , the Supreme Court robustly held, inter alia, that:
‘The time has come for the Supreme Court to relax the application of the rule of locus standi in cases founded on public interest litigation especially in environmental issues. No particular persons own the environment. It is the duty of all and where government agencies desecrate such environments and other relevant government agencies failed, refuse and/or neglect to take necessary steps to enforce compliance, non-governmental organizations, which do not necessarily seek their personal interest, can bring an action in court to demand compliance and ensure the restoration, remediation and protection of the environment. It is in the interest of the public including the government in general.”

The Supreme Court brilliantly noted that it would be a grave lacuna in the system of public law if a pressure group or even a single public-spirited tax-payer were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing a matter to the attention of the Court to vindicate the rule of law and get an unlawful conduct stopped. The Supreme Court believe that this liberal approach will further promote public interest litigation which is an action usually brought for the benefit of a group or class of persons who have suffered a general wrong or about to so suffer as a result of the activities of other persons or corporate institutions . Suffice it to say that this judgment recognized one of the elementary features of public interest litigation which is that the victims are often groups or persons who would not ordinarily be in a position to approach the Court on their own due to impecuniosity or lack of awareness of their rights.

CONCLUSION

Environmental democracy is about government being transparent, accountable, and involving people in decisions that affect their environment.

The new term ‘environmental democracy’, now taking hold, reflects increasing recognition that environmental issues must be addressed by all those affected by their outcome, not just by governments and industrial sectors. It captures the principle of equal rights for all those in the environment debate – including the public, community groups, advocates, industrial leaders, workers, governments, academics and health care professionals. For those whose daily lives reflect the quality of their environment, participation in environmental decision-making is as important as in education, health care, finance and government.

Participation is central to the notion of environmental democracy, which privileges collective decision-making among citizens above decisions based solely on administrative, professional, or scientific expertise.

Environmental democracy is also referred to as environmental justice. Environmental justice offers researchers new insights into the juncture of social inequality and public health and provides a framework for policy discussions on the impact of discrimination on the environmental health of diverse communities. The goal of environmental justice is to provide an environment where all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

RECOMMEDATION

It is recommended that special tribunals be set up in Nigeria to handle environmental infringements and that the government should be frank about implementation of policies that will protect the environment.

When these tribunals are set up, they should have special Rules and Procedures that, inter alia, ascribes a time frame for the hearing and determination of cases instituted in the Tribunal just like the Election Petition Tribunal.

It is also recommended that massive awareness and education on environmental issues and rights should be initiated from the grassroot. Some of the ways awareness can be created by relevant bodies in environmental campaigns is to engage social media platforms, setting up clubs/groups in secondary schools to discuss environmental issues, organizing seminars, workshops and conferences to discuss environmental issues in Nigeria, partnering with the traditional rulers to establish a program for environmental education, engaging in periodic public walk like “Green March” and so on.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

‘WHY COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

The Court of Appeal has issued new rules for the adjudication of appellate cases. In this article, IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu dissects Order 8 Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with “Deposit against Cost” and concludes that it leaves much to be desired especially as it relates to access to justice

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2021 AND DEPOSIT AGAINST COSTS: NEED TO HAVE A RETHINK.

It is no longer news that the Court of Appeal has given itself a new rules of court that will guide proceedings at the appellate court. The new rule, which commenced on the 1st day of November, 2021, has twenty five orders all together.

There are innovations brought into the rules which are far-reaching and will definitely change the face of adjudication at the appellate court. These innovations are Order 16 which deals with Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme (CAADPR); Order 20 which deals with Electronic filling; Order 21 which deals with virtual hearing and Order 22 on Case Scheduling and Management system.

However, an interesting aspect of the rule is Order 8 Rule 11 with the heading, Deposit against Cost. Order 8 Rule 11(1) states as follows:

Upon the transmission of the Record of Appeal, whether by the Registrar of the lower court or by the Appellant, the Appellant shall, within such time as the Registrar of the court shall direct, deposit not less than Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) with the Deputy Registrar of that Division for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the Appellant: Provided that no deposit shall be required from an indigent person or where the deposit would be payable by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of a state, or by any Government department.

The implication of this rule is that for an Appellant to lodge an appeal, he must be ready to pay Deposit against Cost of nothing less than Fifty Thousand Naira. As laudable as this rule is, considering the purpose for which it was inserted, I respectfully submit that the provision is against the principle of access to justice. Notwithstanding the exception of indigent appellants inserted in the rule, it is still going to hinder many people from accessing justice.

For instance, what is the yardstick for measuring an indigent person? Can we assume that majority of Nigerians can afford N50,000 willy nilly? It is conceded here that Order 13 of the rule clearly specifies how an indigent person should proceed, such procedure will unnecessarily delay the appeals if going by the number of appeals we have in our various appellate courts. When will such motion be listed for hearing and so on.

The reality of our situation as lawyers and minister in the temple of justice is that 90% of criminal cases at the appellate courts are done pro bono. As much as lawyers are encouraged to take pro bono cases, they want to dispense with such cases as quickly as possible. Lawyers virtually use their money to pay for the compilation of records and other ancillary costs, to add to their cost by the application of Order 8 Rule 11 is to discourage them from expanding the frontiers of the law.
Ditto the Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases.

It is my contention that Order 8 Rule 11 should not be applicable to criminal and Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases in order to encourage more access to justice.

Ibrahim Lawal is the Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu of the Law Hub, 9 Ring-Road Opposite Iyaganku GRA Roundabout Ibadan.

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. 

PROTEST RESTRICTION: ACCESS TO JUSTICE CARPETS POLICE

*Says restriction is ‘unconstitutional’

Leading human rights group, Access to Justice (A2J) has berated the Nigeria Police for restricting protests to the Unity Fountain, Abuja.

Describing the restriction as “unconstitutional,” A2J said it “amounts to an unwarranted interference with, and infringement of the fundamental rights of citizens to assemble peacefully and to express themselves as enshrined in Sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights.”

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, A2J said such restriction “has been ruled unlawful and unconstitutional by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Inspector General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party and 11 others (2007) where the court held that the procurement of a police permit before a protest could hold was inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and therefore an illegality.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

RESTRICTION OF CIVIL PROTESTS IN FCT ABUJA TO SPECIFIC SITE BY THE NIGERIAN POLICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INFRINGES ON RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY, MOVEMENT AND EXPRESSION

On July 17th 2018, the Nigeria Police announced the restriction of protests in the Federal Capital Territory to the Unity Fountain, Central Business District, Abuja. The Police force said the restrictions were informed by the need to avert an occurrence of incidences similar to those which trailed the protests of October 30th 2018. It would be recalled that on October 30th 2018, officers of the Nigerian Army encountered and opened fire on a procession organized by members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) to protest the unlawful (and protracted) incarceration of their leader, Sheik Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, by the Nigerian Government as well as the killing of several members of the sect by officers of the Nigerian Army on October 27th 2018.

The Police Force said it was aware of the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens to peaceful assembly and movement as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights but however said that that these rights could be restricted or limited on grounds specified in the constitution.

The decision of the Police Force to restrict protesters from venues other than the Unity Fountain amounts to an unwarranted interference with, and infringement of the fundamental rights of citizens to assemble peacefully and to express themselves as enshrined in Sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights. Police restrictions on this right by specifying conditions of its exercise has been ruled unlawful and unconstitutional by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Inspector General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party and 11 others (2007) where the court held that the procurement of a police permit before a protest could hold was inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and therefore an illegality.

The reference by the Police to the need to avert the re-occurrence of the experience of the “protests of October” 2018 involving members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) is fear-mongering rattle, and a clearly unjustifiable blackmail to crackdown on politically unpopular assemblies. The shooting and killing of unarmed Shiite members by operatives of the Nigerian Army is a brutal testament of the military’s lawlessness, but it was not the exercise of the right of peaceful protest that caused it. It was simply caused by the rash, violent and repressive reaction of the military, under-pinned by the culture of impunity rooted in its psyche.

Nigeria expects its police force to act with responsibility, accountability and respect for democratic rights and not to follow in the footsteps of, or replicate the impunity characteristic of Nigeria’s military forces. In fact, had the police exercised its responsibilities diligently, it would have avoided the October 2018 calamities. Had it asserted its rights to manage the protests of October 2018, the military would not have inserted themselves into the course of those catastrophic events, since the management of civil protests is essentially the responsibility of a civilian police. Allowing the military to supplant it and take over its functions in controlling the exercise of a democratic right of civil dissent represents a massive failure on the part of the police force. Furthermore, the police force has grievously failed in the duty to bring the soldiers who horrendously killed unarmed protesters during the October 2018 protests to account, but have rather moved quickly to charge to court, again, IMN protesters over their recent protests a few days ago at the premises of the National Assembly.

By restricting the movements of protesters on the grounds it claims, the Nigerian Police fails to objectively assess and address the chain of events and factors which turn peaceful protests into violent actions; the police’ new policies stigmatize protesters rather than challenge and confront those who authorize inflammatory and brutal actions that escalate tensions during a civil protest, mismanage protest situations and kill scores of unarmed protesters.

The right to protest or assemble cannot be reduced to the right to assemble at only a specific place or time. The right is an aspect of political participation recognized by human rights treaties, and accommodates the freedom to assemble or protest in public spaces, accessible by members of the public. If law enforcement authorities are allowed the right to stipulate places where protests can be held, they would likely do so in a manner that effectively takes away the right, or denude it of meaningful content. The new policy limiting the place where protests can hold to only one place is just as unconstitutional as requiring a police permit before a protest can hold. While fundamental rights can be restricted on established grounds, only a legislation can establish the scope of the restriction, and courts must be satisfied that the purposes of such legislation are rationally related to the restriction. The Nigeria Police Force has not identified a law that authorizes it to limit the places where protests can hold. And it does not have legislative powers to make powers in that respect.

Consequently, Access to Justice calls on the Inspector General of Police to:
a. Immediately reverse the decision restricting public protests by persons or groups to the Unity Fountain, Abuja.
b. Order an immediate investigation into the October 30th 2018 killing of IMN protesters and bring to justice all persons who arbitrarily shot and killed scores of protesters and other civilians during the clashes.
c. Establish more constitutional guidelines for managing public protests that do not interfere with the free exercise of the right to peaceful assembly, movement and expression and instate safeguards to avoid the breakdown of law and order during future protests.
Joseph Otteh Daniel A. Igiekhumhe

Convener Programme Officer

Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Copyright 2018 CITY LAWYER. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.