Featured

Balance Of Rights During A Pandemic: Enforcement Of Lockdown Regulations And Law Enforcement Brutality

Published

5 years ago

May 23, 2020

Mary Izobo and Folasade Abiodun

Since January 2020, COVID-19 pandemic, has held the world to ransom and has posed a threat to public health. It has put a lot of pressure on available medical facilities with a record of over 2,500,000 persons infected and 170,000 deaths globally with numbers set to increase.

In order to stop the spread of the disease, several countries are taking such measures as the closure of airports, ports and land borders, isolation and quarantining of persons, banning of religious gatherings, closure of schools, restaurants, public spaces and a complete “lockdown” or partial lockdown of countries.

Some of these measures as well as the implementation, have implications on the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of assembly.

Almost all countries in Africa have been infected by the coronavirus. Most of the affected African countries have invoked restrictions highlighted above. The police, and in some case the army, have been called upon to compliance by citizens. However, the enforcement of these regulations by these law enforcement officials have generated a lot of controversies and public outcry as there have been severe violations of human rights.

As former colonies with long and difficult histories of war, several countries in Africa have had a history of violation of human rights and brutality by law enforcement officials. Two countries of note are Nigeria and South Africa. The arbitrariness and lawlessness perpetrated by law enforcement agents in these countries are not new nor peculiar to the present pandemic.

This can be traced to the culture of militarism in Nigeria and South Africa as both have long histories of military regime and apartheid rule respectively. It is safe to say that these law enforcement officials are locked in an aggressive mode where they suspend the rights of citizens whenever they are called upon to promote and defend national interests at the detriment of the citizens they are supposed to protect.

Thus, law enforcement officials in these two countries are used to forceful and violent means in enforcing the law and have adopted a muscular approach to alledged violators of the lockdown regulations.Nigeria is experiencing its longest uninterrupted democratic rule since it gained independence in 1960. From 1966 to 1979 and 1983 to 1999, Nigeria was led by the military junta who used the military as a tool to ensure and mandate cooperation from citizens by the use of force.

These periods were marred by gross violation of human rights by the military in Nigeria. In the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, Nigeria took measures to contain the spread by making laws and policies to restrict movement in order to contain the spread. Laws were made to restrict movement in several states, including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria (NHRC) received 105 complaints and eighteen people have been killed between 30 March 2020, the commencement of the lockdown and 15 April 2020 from law enforcement officials, more than the number of persons who have died from COVID-19 in Nigeria.

South Africa experienced a system of apartheid that upheld institutionalized racial segregation and white supremacy from 1948 to 1994. The military was used as a tool by the government to forcefully remove black South Africans from areas designated as “white” to the homelands, terrorised and violated the rights of Black South Africans with impunity.

The Apartheid period gave the military excessive powers and carte blanche to torture citizens. In South Africa, to curb the spread of the coronavirus, President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a national disaster and a complete lockdown of the country. The lockdown started on 27 March 2020, and three days into the lockdown, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) registered 21 cases of police brutality complaints and over nine people have been killed by law enforcement officials.

The law enforcement officials in Nigeria and South Africa have assaulted, tortured, denigrated, unlawfully arrested, seized and looted properties, extorted and carried out corrupt practises in the enforcement of the compliance of lockdown regulations. Citizens going about their legitimate businesses without flouting the lockdown regulations are not exempted from the ruthlessness of these law enforcement agents. These law enforcement officials have abused power, deployed disproportionate use of force, and have blatantly undermined national and international laws. It is apparent that after years of military rule in Nigeria and Apartheid in South Africa, violence by law enforcement officials remains a confirmed way of treating the populace – a sad reality of both countries’ bitter, barbaric, and dark past.

Undoubtedly, those citizens who go against the lockdown regulations should be punished, but in the enforcement of the law, state actors must ensure compliance with the national and international standards.

There is the need to strike a balance in human rights and the public interest that the restriction regulations seek to protect. This is in order to cause the limitation law to be effective and achieve the aim it seeks to achieve.

With Nigeria and South Africa’s past, there should be a better way to deal with the populace. Reasonable and proportionate use of force should be used in7 ensuring compliance without having to violate the human rights of citizens.

Better accountability mechanisms should also be put in place in the event of an erring state actor who violates human rights. In addition, there should be transparency in the punishment of such state actor, as an avenue for reportage is not enough without an assurance of penalty that will serve as a deterrent of such acts.

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

1 week ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook