By Munir Shuaibu Ishaq

In the last 9 years, the country has witnessed more than ever massive corruption involving the diversion of billions of dollars from the government treasury by public officials, and as a result leading to the blatant violation of the human rights of the Nigerian citizens, this article first attempts to define the concepts of corruption and human rights and how the former violates the latter, the article further proceed to highlight notable instances of massive financial corruption in the last 9 years, show how they affect the human rights of Nigerians, and further proffer solution by appealing strongly to the Legislature (National and states Houses of Assembly) to save the situation by amending the Constitution, in light of the provision of the 1995 Draft Constitution in respect to the Fundamental Right to Eradicate Corruption, in order to ameliorate or perhaps put an end to the fight against the age long monster bedevilling the country, by making the fight a fight for all.

Corruption as a universal phenomenon does not enjoy an accepted universal definition, even the most celebrated International instrument on corruption, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) did not define the concept of corruption, but rather listed offences that amount to corrupt practices, however attempts have been made to define it, key is the definition of Transparency International (TI) defining corruption as the ‘misuse of entrusted power for private gain’ worthy also is the definition of the World Bank defining corruption as ‘an abuse of public authority for the purpose of acquiring personal gain’. While the former definition suffers the defect of limiting corruption to the recipient of proceeds of corruption alone while it actually involves the giver too. The latter definition by the World bank falls short of limiting corruption to people occupying public offices only. Chair of Transparency International, Ms. Delia Ferreira Rubio, describing financial corruption in government operations explained thus: “Corruption is like tango; you need two to dance tango, and that is the one who asks for bribe and the one who pays the bribe for the procurement arrangement…” for the purpose of this article however, the writer shall adopt the definition given by the World Bank i.e the abuse of public office for private gains.

Human rights on the other hand are the rights a human being has simply because he is a human being. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines human rights as basic moral guarantees that
people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Human Rights Scholar, Amparo Tomas defined human rights as “universal legal guarantees that belong to all human beings and that protect individuals and/or groups from actions and omissions of the State and some non- state actors that affect fundamental human dignity.” Human Rights are provided for under international, regional as well as national laws, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and other treaties are relevant in this regards. They are also provided for under Chapters 2 and 4 of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, while the provisions of chapter 2 are said not to be enforceable in courts, the provisions in chapter 4 are however fundamental rights which are enforceable.

Corruption may violate Human Rights directly or indirectly, corruption violates human rights directly when the act per se amounts to a violation of human rights, like when a bribe is offered to a judge, it affects the impartiality of that judge and as such affects the right to a fair trial, or in cases when a State (or somebody acting in an official capacity) acts or fails to act in a way that prevents individuals from having access to that right. Corruption may also affect human rights indirectly when it serves as an essential factor
contributing to a chain of events that eventually leads to a violation of those rights. The role of bribery received by public officials in this regards cannot be overemphasized.

In the past 9 years, the country witnessed more than ever massive cases of corruption involving public officials diverting humongous funds, leading to the violation of the fundamental as well as the socio economic rights of Nigerians, notable among these cases is the infamous $2.1 billion arms gate. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission after serious investigations led to the revelations of how these funds were siphoned under the leadership of the then National Security Adviser, renown human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana in a premium times column on the 10th of December 2015, painstakingly explained the travails of the 70 Nigerian soldiers who were convicted of mutiny and condemned to death, 12 of these soldiers were convicted for simply protesting the brutal killing of 10 of their ill-equipped colleagues by the boko haram terrorists, while the remaining 58 were convicted for refusing to advance to the battlefront until they were supplied with adequate arms and ammunitions. He went further to recount the case of Nigerian Army v Brig-General Enitan Ransome-Kuti where the defendant arraigned before the special courts martial was said to had repeatedly requested the late Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Alex Badeh to provide military equipment and demanded that the military camp in Baga be fenced to prevent the Boko Haram sect from invading the town. The Chief of Defence Staff each time turned down the requests on the basis that there was no money. A few weeks later, Baga was attacked by the insurgents, leading to the deaths of soldiers and civilians. The learned human rights lawyer further submitted that by diverting the huge fund for arms procurement, the suspects deliberately caused the death of not less than 25,000 ill-equipped soldiers and unarmed civilians including children, as such leading to the flagrant violation of their fundamental Right to life as enshrined in section 33 of the 1999 Constitution.

Notable also is the case of John Yakubu Yusufu, former head of the police pension funds who was convicted by an FCT High Court sometimes in 2013 after he admitted to converting to his own personal use the sum of about N24 Billion from the police pension funds, these funds were meant to go to police officers who have retired after serving the country, by admitting to embezzling these funds, it follows that these retired officers were left with little or zero income coming in after retiring from service, hence affecting their means of livelihood. Notable also is the case of the former secretary to the government of the federation, who was sacked by the president for allegedly diverting millions of naira earmarked for the welfare of internally displaced persons thrown out of their homes by the boko haram insurgency, similarly is the case of the former head of the National Intelligence Agency who was equally sacked for being allegedly connected to the mysterious $43 million NIA funds recovered from an apartment in Ikoyi, Lagos. Worthy of note also is the case of the former minister of petroleum, Mrs Diezani Allison Madueke facing along others corruption charges to the tune of millions of dollars siphoned from petroleum funds under her leadership, this is just a few to mention in a host of other financial corruption cases we’ve witnessed in the last 9 years.

It is pertinent to note that the devastating effect of the above mentioned cases of diversion of public funds is the role it plays in depriving Nigerians the enjoyment of their Right to adequate standard of living as provided for under international and regional instruments, since monies meant to be used in advancing the development and welfare of the people are diverted to private use, it only follows that the people be thrown into poverty and untold suffering inimical to a dignified life, the truism of this assertion is seen in the report of the World Poverty Clock in June 2018 when it christened Nigeria as the poverty capital of the world with statistics showing 87 million Nigerians living in abject poverty.

The Right to Adequate Standard of living can be seen in the express provisions of Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) Article 11 of the International Convention for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR), and Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the decision of the ECOWAS Court in SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 interpreting the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, all of which are applicable in Nigeria.

In view of the above, it is glaring that for each act of financial corruption successfully perpetrated by these government officials, the aforementioned rights of Nigerians are violated, it is in the spirit of a deep understanding of this monstrous phenomenon and calamitous situation that the framers of the 1995 Draft Constitution in their own wisdom provided as a fundamental right the Right to Eradicate Corruption, for the sake of emphasis, the provision is contained in section 35 of the Draft Constitution and it provides thus:

Every person shall have the right to:
(a) ensure the eradication of corrupt practices, and
abuse of power;
(b) protect and preserve public property;
(c) fight against misappropriation and squandering of
public funds.

Only God knows why the Framers of the 1999 Constitution refused to incorporate this fundamental provision into the 1999 Constitution. No doubt indeed, the Nigerian state has shown so far its commitment in fighting corruption, the enactment of the Corrupt Practices and Other related Offences Act 2000, the creation of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2004, the Code of Conduct Tribunal established in the 1999 Constitution, the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011, the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption 2015, and a host of other steps are indeed laudable strides of the Nigerian government in the fight against corruption. The truth however is, leaving exclusively the prosecution of these cases to the preserve of the government alone has not been forthcoming as we’ve seen in several cases, it may be true that in some developed climes, the government exclusively, albeit successfully handle corruption cases, Nigeria however is an exception to this case, because the office of the Attorney General who is seen as the lead public prosecutor is not unattached from the reins of government, as a government minister with no clearly defined years of tenure, chances are he is bound to act based on the whims and caprices of his ‘oga’.

In light of the foregoing, it is said that ‘No one knows where the shoe pinches, but he who wears it’ it is the people whose rights are been violated as a result of corruption that feel the impact of the corrupt act, since it has been shown that corruption indeed violates the human rights of the citizens, it is only logical that the affected citizens be given the right to fight against what affects and throw them into untold suffering, it is on this note I am calling on the legislature, i.e the National and States Houses of Assembly, in approaching the end of this decade, to equally open the gates to the battlefield to all persons in the fight against the ugly monster, by swiftly amending the 1999 Constitution to include the Fundamental Right to Eradicate Corruption as envisaged above in section 35 of the 1995 Draft Constitution, this will grant private persons the locus standi to challenge corruption cases in our courts. We’ve tried many methods, yet the monster keeps rearing its ugly head, perhaps its time we adopt more radical and progressive measures by making the fight a fight for all, as we prepare to enter into a new decade.

Munir Shuaibu Ishaq is a Final Year Law Student of Bayero University Kano, who is keenly interested in the study of Corruption and Human Rights related issues, he is presently the National Director, Directorate of Students’ Rights, Law Students Association of Nigeria, he can be reached via +2348147841027 or [email protected]

By O. G Chukkol

Are you among those that think by giving a name to financial institutions (bank for example) as next-of-kin you have chosen that person to automatically inherit your wealth in the event of your demise? In other words, do you think by merely picking someone as your next-of-kin you have made that person a beneficiary to your wealth or entitlement(s) in the event of your death? Let us attempt a little legal analysis based on two factors: whether the deceased has a Will (a document written by a deceased when he was alive that prescribes how his property is to be shared when he dies) or whether he dies without a will

In law when a person dies leaving behind a will, he is said to have died testate. In such a circumstance, Issue of next-of-kin becomes useless. The reason is that the wealth of the deceased will simply be shared in line with the contents of the will.

The position is still the same even where the deceased dies without leaving a will. The position is that when a person dies without a will, the question as to who to inherit his wealth is determined by law, that is to say, customary law, or Islamic law or English Law or the Administration of Estates law (or equivalent legislation) not whom the deceased mentioned in his bank or place of work as next-of-kin.

How then do we know the law to be applied in sharing the property of the deceased? The law to be applicable in distributing the estate of the deceased shall be determined by the incidence of marriage of the deceased. If a deceased contracted a statutory marriage, succession to his wealth will be effected in accordance with either the English law or the Administration of Estates Law (or equivalent legislation), depending on the jurisdiction. See Obuzez V. Obuzez (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 430.

Under English Law and the administration of estate laws of various state, the surviving spouse together with the children of the deceased inherit his estate to the exclusion of every other person. The parents of the deceased takes next after the surviving spouse and children, followed by brothers and sisters of the full blood, brothers and sisters of half blood, grandparents, aunties and uncles of full blood relation to the parents of the deceased etc. See Kekereogun & Ors v. Oshodi (1971) LPELR-1686(SC) subject however to contrary provisions under the administration of estate laws of various states.

Where however the deceased contracted a customary marriage, then customary law will determine who will inherit the property of the deceased. That is to say in the circumstance, heirs are those who are under native law and custom entitled to inherit his estate. For Muslims, Islamic law determines who to inherit the deceased estate.

Therefore, under the Nigerian law of intestate succession, one cannot choose his heir under the pretext of next-of-kin; the law imposes heirs on him. For example it is the surviving spouse and children of an intestate who married under the Act that are his heirs. The intestate cannot therefore, by naming only one of them or any of his other blood relatives his next-of-kin, scheme them out of inheritance as the act of naming his next-of-kin does not amount to testamentary disposition.

In view of the foregoing, there is nothing special about next-of-kin as far as succession is concerned. Next-of-kin is merely the first contact point if anything happens to you. He is someone empowered to make decisions for you in times of emergency or where you are not readily available or unable to make the decisions yourself. He is someone empowered to provide necessary information about you where needed such as confirming your identity. He is also someone positioned to make medical decisions such as providing consent for a medical procedure. At best, what a next-of-kin can do after the demise of the deceased is perhaps to ensure that necessary steps are taken towards obtaining letter of administration from the probate. The typical Nigerian’s conception of the term, “next-of-kin” is therefore erroneous.

A next-of-kin can inherit only if he is named in a Will as a beneficiary or by his status he is entitled by law to inherit but not actually because he is named as the next-of-kin of the deceased in a bank or place of work.

O. G Chukkol, student of ABU, Zaria. September 8, 2019