By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa

The United Nations declared December 10 every year as International Human Rights Day, mainly to highlight the rights now recognized globally as enuring to and enjoyed by human beings by virtue of their humanity. Although there is still so much ground to cover in the areas of protection of human rights, the decision to set aside a day for this purpose has helped in no small measure to draw global attention to the issue. I was one of the guest speakers of the Human Rights Committee of the Premier Bar on December 10, 2024, where I shared my thoughts on the topic.

Introduction:

According to António Guterres, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, “human rights are under assault… This year’s [2024’s] theme reminds us that human rights are about building the future — right now… We must stand up for all rights – always.” Guterres’ bird’s-eye view on the global crises against HRs from the vintage of global leadership undoubtedly provides us with a global big picture which is a true reflection of the stark reality of the crises beleaguering HRs right from the pinnacle of the intercontinental stage, through the international, down to national/local scenes. Guterres’ observation is an echo of this year’s theme: Our Rights, Our Future, Right Now.

At the intercontinental and international scenes HRs crises of epic proportions as seen, for instance, in the outrageous wars involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza/Hezbollah and allied Middle Eastern forces; together with other sundry abuses of HRs are blood-cuddling to say the least. Back home in Nigeria, the incidences of decimation of HRs through indiscriminate destruction of lives and property through acts of terror, political crimes, banditry, kidnapping, grievous sexual assaults, domestic violence, etc. give us all a reason to worry. However, in a manner of speaking, Human Rights (HRs), with its global crusade has come a long way. Indeed, it is no longer the infant it once was, though we are yet to see it mature into the adult we all hope it ought to be. In the meantime, let us commemorate a milestone of an HRs global movement, albeit in its adolescence. Shall we?

Conceptual clarifications on key terms:

Rights: The concept of rights, as is typical with most legal concepts, is as multifaceted and poly-dimensional in meaning as there are jurisprudential schools of thought. To begin with, the Black’s Law Dictionary defines rights as something that is just, morally correct, and in accordance with ethical principles or the rules of positive law. It also defines a right as the capacity to control the actions of others with the assistance of the state. Without necessarily allowing ourselves to descend into the depths of the wells of a jurisprudence class on the concept of rights in all its academic nuances, we may further explore a few classical definitions of the most notable legal philosophers of global repute within the realms of jurisprudence.

Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) often considered as the father of international law defined a right as a “moral quality of a person, making it possible to have or do something lawfully.” Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) describes rights as the “capacity to constrain others in accordance with universal laws of freedom.” On his own part, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), dismissing the idea of natural rights, saw rights rather as creation of law, deriving existence and legitimacy from legal systems rather than from moral or natural law. From his positivist standpoint, John Austin (1790–1859) defined a right as a legally enforceable claim. He viewed rights as rooted in the commands of a sovereign and contingent on the existence of law. H.L.A. Hart (1907–1992), on his part, argued that a right is a protected interest or choice that individuals can exercise. His emphasis was on the connection between rights and duties. Wesley Hohfeld (1879–1818) espoused the relational and reciprocal nature of rights.

According to him, rights are a system of jural relations, such as claims, duties, powers, and immunities. The above definitions cut across Natural, Positivist, Utilitarian, etc viewpoints. A more contemporary approach, however, would leave us with the notion that rights encompass moral principles, enforceable claims, or relational constructs or structures ensuring justice and fairness; hence the axiom ubi jus, ibi remedium.

Human rights: Putting it in its simplest expression, HRs may be defined as the freedoms, immunities and benefits that, according to modern values, all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live. According to the UN, HRs may be defined as: Rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Certain cardinal pillars of HRs as espoused by the UN include:

Universality: All people are born with the same rights, regardless of their race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status; Inalienability: People’s rights can never be taken away; Indivisibility: All rights are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others, Interdependence: All rights are related and must be treated as such;

Fundamentality: Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more and Govern how people live: Human rights govern how individuals live in society and with each other, as well as their relationship with the State.

Human rights vs. fundamental rights:

The distinction between Human Rights (HRs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs) is only a little short of the distinction between six and half a dozen in that both concepts refer largely to the same substance. Traditionally, the term FRs is used in a constitutional context whereas the term HRs is used in international law.

By Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 ”Fundamental Right” and “Human Right” are defined in the following manner:- “Fundamental Right – means any of the rights provided for in Chapter IV of the Constitution, and includes any of the rights stipulated in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. Human Rights – includes fundamental rights.

Eso, J.S.C. in Ransome-Kuti v. A-G. Federation, (1985) LPELR-2940(SC) on the nature and meaning of FRs, has this to say: …What is the nature of a fundamental right? It is a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which in fact is antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary condition to a civilized existence and what has been done by our constitution since independence, starting with the Independence Constitution that is: the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council 1960 up to the present Constitution that is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (the latter does not in fact apply to this case: it is the 1963 Constitution that applies) is to have these rights enshrined in the Constitution so that the rights could be “immutable” to the extent of the “non-immutability” of the Constitution itself. [Emphasis supplied].

As such, FRs are those HRs trapped and domiciled or better still, entrenched within the documentary four walls of a Constitution or statute. HRs, on the other hand, extends beyond FRs, and embraces all those God-endowed rights intrinsic to the human person by virtue of his humanity. In our Nigerian context, the locus of the FRs is Chapter IV of the Constitution comprising Sections 33 to 46 thereof. FRs may also be found in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

A brief historical background on the UDHR:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on the 10th of December, 1948. Like the UN itself, UDHR rose from the ashes of World War II. When it was adopted in 1948, much of the world was still recovering from the sore wounds of the deadliest conflict in history, which claimed more than 60 million lives.

In the aftermath of such unprecedented death and destruction of lives and property, the world turned to diplomacy to make sure history would not repeat itself. Nations came together for the first time to publicly declare the fundamental freedoms that belong to all of us. The Commission on Human Rights was set up, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady of the United States of America (from 1933 to 1945) and tasked with the responsibility of composing the UDHR. Roosevelt asserted the Declaration would reflect more than Western ideas; to accomplish this, the Human Rights Commission was made up of members from various cultural and legal backgrounds from all around the world, showing respect for differing cultures and their customs while also ensuring each region had a hand in creating the document. Under Roosevelt’s leadership, the diverse commission was able to craft the UDHR in a unique and culturally competent way.

The UDHR contains a preamble and 30 articles outlining our most basic birth rights, including protection against torture, inhumane treatment, cruel punishment, slavery, and servitude. It covers both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. The document heralded a new chapter of human history.

By Kenneth Okonkwo

Comprehensive tax reforms in Nigeria is long overdue. Under existing laws, taxes like Personal Income Tax (PIT), Company Income Tax (CIT), Capital Gains Tax (CGT), Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT), Value-Added Tax (VAT), Tertiary Education Tax (TET), and other taxing provisions in numerous laws are administered separately, with individual legislative frameworks. The proposed reforms seek to consolidate these numerous taxes, integrating PIT, CIT, CGT, PPT, VAT, TET, excise duties, etc, into a unified structure to reduce administrative fragmentation.

While there may be differences in approach to the understanding of the specific provisions of the new tax bills, what is not in contention is the need to review the tax laws and how we administer them to serve the nation’s overall national development agenda. Presently in Nigeria, there are more than 100 different taxes on individuals and corporate bodies extorted from Nigerians by various legal and illegal entities thereby creating a toxic environment for business.

The tax bills before the National Assembly aim to streamline Nigeria’s tax administration processes, completely overhaul the nation’s tax operations, and align them with global best practices. President Tinubu set up the Presidential Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy Reform in August 2023, and had only one objective: to reposition the economy for better productivity and efficiency and make the operating environment for investment and businesses more conducive. The Oyedele-led committee is responsible for transforming revenue generation for sustainable development to achieve at least 18% Tax to GDP ratio within the next three years, that is, by 2026. Subsequently, in early October 2024, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu transmitted the Nigeria Tax Bill 2024 to the National Assembly.

The four bills are the Nigeria Tax Bill, the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill. The Nigeria Tax Bill seeks to eliminate multiple taxation and make Nigeria’s economy more competitive by simplifying tax obligations for businesses and individuals nationwide. The Nigeria Tax Administration Bill (NTAB) proposes new rules governing the administration of all taxes in the country. Its objective is to harmonise tax administrative processes across federal, state and local jurisdictions to ease taxpayers’ compliance and enhance the revenue for all tiers of government.

The Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill seeks to re-establish the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) as the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) to better reflect its mandate as the revenue agency for the entire federation, not just the Federal Government. The Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill proposes creating a Joint Revenue Board to replace the Joint Tax Board, covering federal and all state tax authorities, and will also establish Tax Tribunals, and the Office of Tax Ombudsman to protect taxpayers’ interests and facilitate dispute resolution.

The advantages of these bills are obvious. The bills are expected to reshape Nigeria’s fiscal framework and establish a comprehensive legal framework governing taxation of incomes, transactions, and instruments. They will harmonise multiple taxes and levies at all levels of government and also will be responsible for the unification of revenue collection functions as well as modernisation and simplification of the tax system, including the use of technology for revenue collection.

Unfortunately, like most of what this regime does, consultation with stakeholders was inadequate. They need to know more to support the amendment. The National Executive Council (NEC), made up of the 36 Governors and headed by Kashim Shettima, the Vice President, pleaded with the President to withdraw the bill for further consultation. This agreement was announced by Seyi Makinde, the Governor of Oyo State. Even the traditional rulers of Oyo State pleaded for further consultation and information before the bills are forwarded to the National Assembly for passage to no avail. PAYE and VAT are state taxes. It’s preposterous that their advice and consent will not be sort before passing an Act that will affect their economy. Tinubu bluntly stated that any further consultations and engagement with key stakeholders to address any reservations about the bills should go on while the National Assembly considers them for passage.

This great speed to pass the bills created the impression that the government had a lot of things hidden in the bill that are targeted against certain sections of the country. They range from the sublime to the ridiculous. The first impression was that the tax regime was targeted against the North and was skewed to favour Lagos State. After a careful observation, the reverse was actually the case. The Northern Governors created the impression that the VAT regime was designed to be shared based on where the headquarters of the businesses reside. But the actual situation is that derivation formula will apply in the new bill for the collection and sharing of the VAT revenues, which meant that every state will receive the VAT revenue based on what is consumed in their states. No reasonable person can fault this arrangement. However, how can they understand if they are not informed.

The refusal of the government to consult has led to the opponents of the bills alleviating some obvious bad provisions to a level of intolerance. Section 146 of the bill, which should rank as the worst provision in the bills, seeks to raise the value added tax (VAT) from 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent by 2025, with further increases to 12.5 per cent from 2026 to 2029, and 15 per cent from 2030 onwards. How can a government which increased the price of fuel from N195 at inception to more than N1,000 now, increased electricity tariff, depreciated the naira from about N450 per a dollar to about N1,650 per a dollar, etc, be contemplating increasing taxes on Nigerians?

This is unconscionable and insensitive. This government seems poised to make 90% of Nigerians very poor before leaving office, God forbid. If this government had dialogued with all the relevant stakeholders, such provisions will not find a place in the bills. For the avoidance of doubt, any law that increases the tax of Nigerians by even one kobo now is a bad law and should be discarded by the legislature. The idea of taxing the rich and exempting the poor is not a clever excuse because if the rich can not afford the tax, they will not be able to employ the poor or pay them well if employed. If the rich becomes poorer, the poor become poorest. Every person needs reduction and relief from tax payment instead of increase in tax burden.

The tax reform bills also pride itself for exempting the poor from taxation. In pursuance to this, it stipulated that anyone earning N800,000 or below per annum will be exempted from taxation. The problem with this provision is that the minimum wage is N70,000 per month which totals about N840,000 per annum. This means that even the lowest earning worker in Nigeria is not qualified to gain anything from the exemption from paying tax. Who then can benefit from it? Consultation would have saved the executive from such little little embarrassment. When these bills were initially introduced to the National Assembly for passage what happened first was apprehension due to lack of adequate consultation and information about the bills.

This apprehension later grew into resentment when the executive resisted or rejected further consultation with relevant stakeholders before submitting to the National Assembly for approval. The resentment was so palpable that some religious fundamentalists even fabricated that some of the provisions of the tax bills are against the Sharia law. They insinuated that the bills contain provisions which will tax inherited assets by 24%. Till date nobody has pointed out such provisions. When there is information vacuum, ignorant and dubious men will fill it with fabricated lies.

This government has not learned any lessons from its past failures in consultation. President Tinubu declared that fuel subsidy was gone on the inauguration ground without consulting any human being, and went further to depreciate the naira mercilessly without a cabinet. He boasted to remove the Nigerien Military Head of State by force within seven days if he does not step down as Head of State after a successful military coup in Niger Republic, without consulting the Senate which constitutionally has the power to approve any military action outside Nigeria. He closed the border with Niger Republic for months without consulting the Governors of the seven northern states sharing border with Niger because of the coup even before exploring diplomatic means of resolving the problems, etc. Nigerians have been suffering from the consequences of such decisions till date.

This government must learn that it’s not a sign of weakness to consult with the people before presenting any bill to the legislature. Democracy is the rule of the people and the Constitution mandated the government to ensure and guarantee the participation of the people in their government. (See section 14(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended). It’s also good politics to carry all the political actors along while seeking approval of executive bills on the floor of the National Assembly. Shettima and the Governors must have been visibly embarrassed by the action of President Tinubu to treat their request for more consultation on the bill before legislative passage with absolute contempt. These bills contain some good provisions and deserve to be passed with desired and negotiated amendments.

By Suyi Ayodele

Each time I watched the video of Dele Farotimi arrest in Lagos, I remembered my arrest in my office on Mission Road, Benin City that Monday afternoon in 2007!

When a matter is before the courts, no mortal is allowed to discuss it in the open. Lawyers call that sub judice. I want to believe that infraction is punishable. I have been locked up for five days for what they called “contempt of court”. The experience scares me to date.

My arrest by a team of seven policemen, a court bailiff, a lawyer, one unknown individual and the claimant in the civil matter involved, happened in less than 15 minutes. I was served Form 48 (Notification of contempt) and Form 49 (Committal to Prison) within an interval of six minutes.

Before I could read through the contents of the paper, I was surrounded by policemen. The only call I could make was to my landlady to help in picking up my son from school. The mother was away on a journey. What did I do wrong?

I was just a company representative in the matter involving a neighbour and the telecommunications company I worked for. The man complained about the noise from the telecommunication mast erected in the next compound to his. He went to a Benin High Court. He lost. While the case lasted, I was the one representing the company. My name and designation duly recorded by the court.

Not satisfied, the man approached some officials of the Edo State Environmental Sanitation Board. Somehow, a matter was filed at a magistrate court by a body which called itself Edo State Public Sanitation Officers. An unknown name and body. I was the one who received the court papers on behalf of the company and sent to represent the company each time the matter came up. The magistrate court also had my details.

As a preliminary measure, the presiding magistrate issued an “Abatement of Nuisance Order”, asking the company to shut down the power-generating sets on the site. The argument that the matter had been decided by a higher court of record would not persuade the magistrate. Not even the unassailable argument that the Edo State Sanitation Workers is a non-juristic body would hold water. The court just ordered for a shutdown of the base station!

I wrote a memo asking for compliance, when I received the enrollment order. The technical department shut down the site immediately. The base station started running on batteries. However, a maintenance contractor on a routine check discovered that the site was down, when the batteries got drained, and powered it on generators. Needless to say, the two generators were silent ones, noiseless! He did that on a Sunday night.

Early Monday morning, the complainant (Edo State Public Sanitation Officers) went to the court. The nominal complainant accompanied them. They filed for contempt, got the magistrate to hear the motion and ordered for issuance of Form 48, and signed Form 49 alongside.

A court bailiff was on hand to serve “all parties”; policemen were at alert to enforce the order. With the speed of light, execution of the court order was enforced. Pronto, I was “railroaded” to a jailhouse. And guess what, the magistrate who issued the arrest and detention order joined the Chief Judge of the state on prison visitation that same Monday. The only matter she heard and ruled on was my case! The prison visitation exercise was to last till Friday. The implication is that she would not be available to hear me “to show cause why I should not be committed to prison”. In any case, with the issuance of Form 49, which “cause” is left for me to show?

But the Legal Officer of the Edo Police Command had compassion on me. He listened to the circumstances of the matter. He used his discretion. Rather than calling the prison official to take me, he ordered that I be detained in police custody. Then he did something more wonderful. He instructed that I should be allowed to stay at the counter and not in any cell. I stayed in his office from morning till he closed. Then, I would be returned to the police counter. My car served as my bed at night and the Inspectors’ bathroom made available for my toiletries!  God bless the man wherever he is!

I spent Monday through Friday in police custody. It was not a nice experience. A senior lawyer, a friend, who saw me at the Edo Police Headquarters asked for the details of the matter. He was livid. First, the contempt should not have been issued against me but the company, he noted. I was just the company’s representative. Second, he contended that the order should have been to arrest the most senior manager of the company. But the contempt was issued against me in flesh and blood!

He explained that it was when the most senior manager was not available that the officers next to him in ranks could be picked up. Again, he said that Form 49 (committal to prison) ought to have been issued if the accused did not show cause to obey the court order. Most importantly, he faulted the idea of a magistrate issuing a warrant, an open-ended warrant, for an arrest for contempt and not making herself available to hear if the accused has purged himself of the contempt.

The senior lawyer was frank. Something was fishy. But he restrained himself from saying what he suspected. “Suyi, you are just a victim of the rots in the judiciary”, he told me. Then he assured that he would try to get the magistrate to take some hours off the prison visitation to hear the matter. That did not happen. And guess what, the man, who complained about the nuisance from the generator, was ‘visiting’ me daily in police custody. There was a time that he complained that I was not in the cell or prison as “ordered by the court.” He stopped that daily ‘mourning’ when a police officer told him off and threatened to lock him up should he come to tell them how to do their job.

To confirm my suspicion of a dirty game in the matter, when the magistrate finally made herself available on Friday, the complainant, the Edo State Public Sanitation Officers, was never in court, nor was the illegal body represented by a counsel. The nominal complainant also stayed off. The magistrate simply vacated the “order of committal to prison”, and I was set free! Nobody mentioned the matter thereafter. Life simply returned to normal for “all parties”! This incident happened in 2007.

I summoned the courage to write about the issue between the Lagos lawyer, Dele Farotimi, and Chief Afe Babalola, a lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), in the matter of defamation pending before a magistrate court in Ekiti State, because Babalola’s lawyers had chosen to address a press conference over the matter. If not, I wouldn’t have risked the idea of another possible “contempt of court!”. It is not for fun that our elders say that: Eni tí Sàngó bá tojú è wolè, kò ní bá won bú Oba Kòso (Whoever has witnessed the devastating ramming of thunder would never join in insulting the king of Koso -Sango).

Dele Farotimi wrote a book, “Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System.” Snippets from the book indicate that Farotimi raised serious allegations against Chief Afe Babalola (SAN). He railed against Babalola in a case in which the old man was his opposing lawyer. Afe Babalola, won the case, according to the information in the open space. Farotimi believed that the senior lawyer won because he “procured” the judgement for his client!  That is a weighty allegation to make. The old man expectedly was livid. Who won’t in that circumstance? Babalola petitioned the police for criminal defamation. Because Babalola resides in Ado Ekiti, he took his petition to the Ekiti State Police Command.

The police in Ekiti moved to Lagos. Farotimi was arrested, bundled to a vehicle to answer ‘present”, before a magistrate court in Ado Ekiti. He was remanded in prison custody. He was granted bail today.

I have read all the dramas that have played out. A senior editor that is close to me; sorry, I am the one close to him, (before dem catch me for insubordination) said that the “children of anger” would come into the fray. He was right! The Internet is practically on fire over the matter.

The entirety of Farotimi’s anger against the judiciary in his book is captured in his corruption allegation in that critical sector of our life. Is the fiery lawyer, right? Is he justified to be that venomous about our judiciary?

We may pretend about everything. But we cannot pretend that that there are no allegations against the judiciary especially in view of the quick recourse to the “go to court” cliche! The cliché, “go to court”, the new language of the present ruiners of our beings, confirms more than anything, the terrible situation our judiciary is. Once your opponent tells you to “go to court”, just know that he or she has the court in his or her pouch!

But is Farotimi right to have accused Chief Afe Babalola of “procuring” judgement in the matter he, Farotimi, lost to the senior lawyer at the Supreme Court? The answer is difficult to conjecture. Yes, if Farotimi has concrete evidence. And no, if he has no evidence but was just bitter because he lost the case.

But if on the other hand, Farotimi was just emotional about losing the 2013 Supreme Court case in the land matter between his client and Babalola’s client, and he decided to bring the roof down on everybody, I would commend him to learn from the ways of the hunters of old and their sharing formula.

The practice among hunters is that in a group game hunting, whoever fired the bullets that killed the game takes the head. It does not matter if the fortunate hunter is the youngest and the least experienced. The head of a game killed in a group hunting exercise is significant in all aspects. But its esoteric significance is what matters to the hunters. Don’t ask me for that here, please.

Farotimi has an onerous task. He must prove his allegations against Chief Afe Babalola. His second option is not too good. If he cannot prove the allegations, he must admit his mistakes and apologise or face the consequences of his actions with all boldness! A senior lawyer once told me that the major ingredient of libel is malice. This is what Farotimi has standing against him should he not have any proof!

The legal icon too, Chief Afe Babalola, has the right to defend his name. After over six decades at the Bar, Chief Babalola would be dead if he allowed the accusations to just go away like that. I would not buy the wisdom in the traditional philosophy of “Àgbà ló ma nrí ara gbà” (An elder should be able to accommodate all insults). No! That wisdom will not apply here, except the erring partner becomes sober and ready to make amends in the open!

If Dele Farotimi has no proof of his accusation, I would advise that he should look for all the Àró and Òdòfin (senior chiefs) of Yorubaland to help him beg Baba Afe Babalola. And if his case is like that of the hunters in a game sharing exercise, who had evidence (his gunshot sound) but was not concrete enough, he should still assemble the elders to assist him in placating the old man in Ado Ekiti.