Chukwudi Nweje

Rights activist, Femi Falana, on Wednesday, said extraordinary measures cannot be adopted as national security or the security of the country and be put above the interest of the citizenry.

Falana, who spoke at the ongoing 2018 annual conference of the Nigerian Bar Association, in Abuja, in response to President Muhammadu Buhari’s position that national security, takes precedence over rule of law, said national security must be about protecting the citizenry.

He said: “In democratic societies, human rights are at the core of national security itself. I posit that the purpose of national security should be to protect democracy and enhance democratic principles.

READ ALSO: Ekiti poll tribunal: Fayemi, APC hire 35 lawyers for defence

“It is problematic to place the security of the state entirely above the interests of individual citizens. Placing security concerns in direct opposition to human rights creates a false dichotomy. Each is essential for ensuring that a society is free and secure. Privileging one over the other can have unintended negative consequences.”

Falana said the concept of national security must be properly defined and made accountable to the people.

“National security must be reduced to its absolute minimum, what I call a democratic conception of national security. The use of extraordinary measures in the name of national security for any other purpose should be discouraged. Nigeria’s national security institutions must be effectively regulated and made accountable,” he said.

Related News

He said the protection and advancement of human rights are the core of national security in every democracy, and noted that the purpose of national security is to protect democracy and enhance democratic principles.

“Human rights are at the core of national security itself. I posit that the purpose of national security should be to protect democracy and enhance democratic principles.

“It is problematic to place the security of the state entirely above the interests of individual citizens. Placing security concerns in direct opposition to human rights creates a false dichotomy. Each is essential for ensuring that a society is free and secure. Privileging one over the other can have unintended negative consequences.

READ ALSO: Fake News and the oga at the top

“The extent that the protection of these rights are guaranteed signifies the democratic strength of a country, as human rights and the rule of law are crucial to the well-being of any truly democratic society.

“Good governance requires the rule of law. Having good laws on the statue books is not enough. Laws must be implemented and enforced fairly and consistently in a transparent way or they risk becoming dead letters or, worse, instruments of oppression. There must therefore be some separation of powers and an independent judiciary.

“The government must adopt broad-ranging measures geared to develop an effective institution with an appropriate organisational culture for a democratic society as well as the direct and mandatory involvement of the National Assembly in after-the-fact review. In the final analysis, it is essential to place further legal limitations on government’s use of special national security measures.

“Since the security of the government in power is always equated with national security the police and security agencies have concentrated their attention on monitoring the activities of human rights activists and opposition figures in the country,”  he said.