General Theoplulus Yakubu Danjuma is not the ordinary run-of-the-mill military officer.
Tested and trusted, he ranks as one of the most respected first generation military oligarchs still standing “gidigba” on his two legs; where most of his peers have joined their ancestors. Very wealthy, urbane, but frighteningly measured and taciturn, he wears the menacing look of a predator about to launch an attack on a helpless prey. His smiles are rare, and very fleeting when they occur. He looks serious, but paradoxically simple.
A kind hearted philanthropist extraordinaire, TY (as he is fondly called), has used his wealth, like democracy martyr, Chief M.K.O. Abiola, to manure the parched paths of many Nigerians. Born on 9th December, 1938, in Takum, Taraba State, TY participated in the counter coup that toppled the unitary military junta of General Johnson Thomas Umunakwe Aguiyi Ironsi in 1966.
He was a prominent actor in the 1967 – 1970 bloody Biafran – Nigerian civil war. He was GOC, Chief of Army staff and later, Minister of Defence under Obasanjo.
In Military matters therefore, TY is like the oracle at Ile-Ife that gazes into the future to pronounce the next Ooni. TY does not hug the media; is not a publicity – seeking man. He is even shy. So, when such a military icon speaks, Nigerians must listen, because he can only be actuated by the best of patriotic instincts. He had helped to enthrone OBJ as president, right from Jos prisons where he was clamped by Dictator Abacha. He had categorically threatened to go on exile if OBJ failed the 1999 presidential elections. Ironically, he also killed, with underground sledge hammer, OBJ’s infamous quest for a 3rd term. He rejected military espirit decorps, to undermine his senior and boss.
At the first graduation ceremony of Taraba State University last week, a frustrated TY who apparently had exhausted quiet underground maneuvers with the authorities, to halt herdsmen pogrom of his people, and other Nigerians accused the military of partiality, collusion, and lack of neutrality in the herdsmen crisis: “they collude, they collude, they collude, with the armed bandits that kill people in Nigeria. They facilitate their movement. They cover them. If you are depending on the Armed Forces to stop the killings, you will all die one by one. The ethnic cleansing in Taraba State must stop; in all the states of Nigeria, otherwise Somalia will be a child’s play. I ask every one of you to be alert; and defend your country, defend your territory, defend your state. You have nowhere else to go. God bless our country”. The speech was brief, tough and direct. No ambivalence. No sophistry. No pretensions. But, TY was not saying something new. It is just that the messenger is iconic, his voice resonating.
All he said is that every Nigerian has a right to self defence. This is correct. It is provided for in our extant laws. It has been so over the ages. Exodus 22:2-3 says: “If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder”. (To be continued next week).
The right to self-defence
From time immemorial, the right to self defence of oneself or another person against unjustifiable attack has been recognised. It is ancient. Russell on Crime states the rule as follows: “A man is justified in resisting by force anyone who manifestly intends and endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known felony against either his person, habitation or property. In these cases, he is not obliged to retreat, and may not merely resist the attack where he stands but may indeed pursue his adversary until the danger is ended and if in a conflict between them he happens to kill his attacker such killing is justifiable.”
The right to self defence has been given statutory imprimatur in Nigeria, and has been codified in section 32 (3) of the Criminal Code applicable in the southern states of Nigeria and section 59 of the penal code applicable in the northern states of Nigeria.
Section 32 (3) of the Criminal Code provides that, “a person is not criminally liable for an act, when the act is reasonably necessary in order to resist actual and unlawful violence threatened to him or to another person in his presence.”
Section 59 of the Penal Code on the other hand provides: “Nothing is an offence of which is done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence”.
Under section 60 of the Penal Code, it is provided that “subject to restrictions contained in the code, every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of another person against any offence affecting the human body”.
The illegality of media parade by police of criminal suspects before their arraignment
Undoubtedly, suspects under arrest in Nigeria today are not treated in accordance with their constitutional, statutory and human rights respect as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. Moreover, as regards the parade of suspected alleged criminals before the public, it is clear that no law empowers the Police to parade suspected criminals publicly before they are arraigned in a court of law.
Indeed, the only legal authority that allows for an accused to be paraded is the principle governing identification parade. Identification parade has no statutory foundation. It draws inspiration from conventional and common law restatements of criminal procedural best practices in the identification of alleged criminals by witnesses to the crime, to guarantee the broader spectrum of criminal fair hearing to the accused. The exercise essentially allows the Police to parade suspects for the sole purpose of identification by a witness(s) to the crime allegedly committed. Being a customary practice adopted by courts across common law jurisdictions, it has received judicial affirmation and vindication in a number of cases. The cases of Ani v State (2002) 1 WLR (pt 747) 217 and Bozin v State(1985) 2 NWLR (pt 8) 465,Uzoma v State(2016) LPELR – 26059 (SC), Adamu v State (2017) LPELR – 41436 (SC), Aichenabor v State (2015) ALL FWLR (pt 763) are apposite here.
Notably, the practice of parading alleged criminals before arraignment is repugnant to our criminal justice system. This practice gained currency during the military era when armed robbery incidents were rampant shortly after the civil war. For the Police to show their capacity and competence to combat such crimes, they gleefully paraded suspects before the public, to gain public approval and commendation for their “herculean” efforts. But the practice is certainly unconstitutional and therefore an illegality.
As a matter of fact, to parade suspected criminals in public amounts to subjecting them to inhuman and degrading treatment which is certainly contrary to the provisions of Section 34of the 1999 Constitution.
Section 34 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended stipulates that “Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of person, and accordingly no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment”.
Furthermore, Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that “every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”.
Similarly, Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights stipulates that “every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.”
Having regard to the above provisions, it is crystal clear that media parade of suspected criminals is not contemplated in any of our extant laws and the Constitution, except it is an identification parade.
A litany of courts pronouncements have since decried this obnoxious practice of parading suspected criminals publicly before trial, as unknown to any law in Nigeria. Cases such as Ndukwem Chiziri, Nice v. AG. Federation & Anor (2007) CHR 218, refer. In Nice’s case, at page 232, Justice Banjoko held that “the act of parading him (the suspect) before the press as evidenced by the Exhibits annexed to the affidavit was uncalled for and a callous disregard for his person. He was shown up to the public the next day of his arrest even without any investigation conducted in the matter. He was already prejudiced by the police who are incompetent so to have such function; it is the duty of the Court to pass a verdict of guilt and this constitutes a clear breach of Section 36(4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended on the doctrine of fair hearing”.
Similarly, in Dyot Bayi & 14 ors. v. FRN (2004) CCJLER 245 AT 265, the ECOWAS court castigated the media trial of Applicants when it held that:
“The court is of the opinion that for the fact that the Defendants presented the Applicants before the press when no judge or court has found them guilty certainly constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence as provided in the 1999 Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
It is quite disheartening that despite these judicial pronouncements, the Police have continually turned a deaf ear and have persistently continued their unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional act of parading criminal suspects in defiance of the clear position of the law demonstrated in the above cases.
Ultimately, parading alleged suspects before the public without first getting final conviction of the suspects tars them with the hideous paint brush of guilt and criminality. This is no doubt a traumatic experience for them, most especially if they are later found innocent of such allegations. Parading criminal suspects publicly amounts to gross violation of their fundamental human rightsand remains unconstitutional as there is nowhere in our statutes that empowers the Police to humiliate a suspect, ridicule and disgrace him before a proper arraignment is carried out.
Although there is no legal authority legitimizing criminal parade of accused persons, it appears that the law does contemplate a possible scenario where an accused person, having given a confessional statement (in a criminal offence of outstanding notoriety), maybe subjected to a media parade, where he voluntarily recounts his confessional statement to the press.
This appears to be an exception to the rule in Ndukwem Chiziri and Nice Nice v. AG, Federation & Anor (supra).
Even then, in any such of such parade, the accused remains a mere suspect and his confessional statement does not operate to negate or remove his protection of his right to fair hearing before a proper court of law.
Thought for the week
When we talk about violence, we do not always talk about death, I said. Sometimes violence can mean the difference between life and death. The difference between waiting for someone’s help and continue to suffer abuse, and helping yourself when you most need it.” (Tanaz Bhathena)