AFTER completing its review of the 2007 and 2011 polls, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has released a 284-page report indicting some 118 politicians and officials for criminal offences and other general administrative, professional or judicial misconduct. The indictments were made pursuant to a review of available election petition cases, and were intended to serve as bases for the Minister of Justice and other administrative bodies to prosecute offenders or punish those who committed infractions, said the NHRC Executive Secretary, Bem Angwe. Immediately the report was released, it became hugely controversial, with many of those indicted already asserting their innocence or entirely denouncing the report. If what has been described as a bold step to sanitise and reform the electoral process is not to be lost, the Minister of Justice will have to prepare to prosecute those indicted, while other institutions must bring disciplinary measures to bear on their indicted officials in line with in-house rules and regulations.
Though the NHRC indictments are controversial, especially given the many high-profile names mentioned in the report, some of whom have begun to cry foul, many of the indictments have been based on completed and unchallenged legal processes. There is no reason for the Justice ministry and other affected institutions to pull any punches in bringing to account everyone mentioned in the report. They have been availed of the facts of the cases; it is now left for the government to act firmly if the electoral process is to be sanitised and restructured for enhanced operations. Former governors, a former electoral chairman, senators, security officials and even judicial officers have all been mentioned. It is inconceivable that this very thorough report would be ignored.
The NHRC under its former executive secretary, Chidi Odinkalu, and its current boss, Prof Angwe, has been a model in bureaucratic tact. The Commission is fortunate to have at its helm men who are more anxious about defending human rights and establishing the truth than compromising both assignments for fear of the governmentโs reaction. The NHRC is thus a model public institution in Nigeria determined to sustain its independence, nurture its courage, and seek to promote the well-being of Nigerians. Dr Odinkalu had been particularly outspoken when he supervise the Commission, and had discharged his tasks with great aplomb. Prof Angwe seems, so far, tarred with the same brush. The principles undergirding the formation of the NHRC demand no less of its leaders, though it speaks volumes of the character of its two executive secretaries that they have managed to build and sustain an enviable reputation for the organisation. Nigerians may gradually begin to repose trust in the Commission and avail it of cases of human rights abuses not remedied at lower levels.
One of the most celebrated cases handled by the NHRC since 2010 was the investigation of the killing of squatters in Abuja in September 2013. It discharged that responsibility admirably, though a closure to the case is yet to be achieved. In that raid at a location in Apo Quarters of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), eight squatters were killed inside an uncompleted building in the city, while 11 more sustained bullet wounds. The joint raid by the military and the Department of State Service was ostensibly to eliminate a small colony of Boko Haram elements. But after investigations, the NHRC found the army and DSS culpable. The squatters, many of whom belonged to various artisanal associations in the FCT, were neither criminals nor members of the Boko Haram sect. The Commission then ordered that substantial compensations be paid to survivors of the violence as well as families of the slain men.
Indeed, there has been no case investigated by the NHRC where it demonstrated timidity in the face of hostile law enforcement agencies or the government itself. Importantly, too, it has substantially demonstrated competence and thoroughness. The Apo killings investigation was probably the archetype. Now, in an unprecedented move, the Commission has done remarkably well to put a strong focus on election crimes and other electoral infractions. By taking this first tentative and momentous step, it reinforces the argument that electoral crimes are so significant that they impact sometimes very savagely on the survival of the polity. For those crimes not to be swept under the carpet, the NHRC has completed its review, mentioned names, some of them well-known personalities, and asked that they be prosecuted and/or punished. The relevant authorities must now complement the effort of the NHRC by acting on the report in cases where their staff are mentioned. Fortunately, court judgements are available to serve as a starting point. If the electoral process is to be sanitised, action must be taken on the NHRC report.
Given its antecedents, not to say its painstaking thoroughness, it is expected that the anticipated NHRCโs report on the December Zaria clash between the army and Shiite members will likely be more impactful if it is taken from the perspective of human rights rather than security. The challenge thereafter will be how the government at federal and state levels will handle the report or prosecute offenders if indictments are established with the customary candour the Commission is noted for. The Kaduna State government has already published the report of the Justice Mohammed Garba-led panel on the Army-Shiites clash. While the report clearly established extra-judicial killings against the army, it hemmed and hawed in assigning responsibility for the clash. It is unlikely any other panel will find the extra-judicial killings committed by soldiers justified by the intransigence or even irrationality of protesting Shiites. The NHRC report will, therefore, likely be more trenchant and discomfiting, especially in view of the fact that the Shiites allege that between 500 and 1000 of their members were killed in that December encounter.
Unlike the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the DSS, and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) which are either overbearing, unduly feared or celebrated, the NHRC is less hysterical and virtually anonymous. In fact, until the Apo killings and its celebrated verdict, the Commission seemed to wink in the dark. Yet, it had apparently always worked conscientiously, perhaps now as Nigeriaโs preeminent model public institution. Had the police worked as diligently as the NHRC without waiting to be ordered by the executive, and had they not preoccupied themselves with reading the faces and lips of the executive in matters they think government interests needed to be protected, law enforcement work would be tremendously boosted, and the public would have some measure of confidence in the justice system. The NHRC has its enabling law, an Act in 1995 establishing it, and the 2010 amended Act. It has since then not waited to be ordered around. Other institutions also have their enabling laws, but have remained at the beck and call of the executive. The mindset must change for these other public institutions to function without cultural, political or governmental biases.
If the NHRC continues to boast of competent and independently-minded leaders, it can be relied upon to function within the laws establishing it and the framework of the tradition and culture fostered by its foundation leaders. It has worked hard and passionately, and it has kept its head when many other institutions are losing theirs. All that remains is to live up to its culture of fearless intervention in the grave and sometimes portentous issues that affect human rights. Nigeria is a signatory to United Nations and African Bill of Human Rights, but it has fared very badly in respecting them, leading some non-governmental organisations like the Amnesty International to indict Nigeria on series of rights abuses. If it sustains its courage in doing what is right, as indeed it has done so far, the NHRC could help Nigeria gradually transform from a country reeling under impunity to one sensitive about the rights and privileges of its citizens.
