Press Release by National Human Rights Commission - November 9, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY CHIDI ANSELM ODINKALU, PH.D (LSE); CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL, NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF NIGERIA.

ABUJA/LAGOS, 09 NOVEMBER 2013: I have been inundated by inquiries about the on going processes of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in relation to a recent complaint initiated by Mrs. Clara Chime.

As the complainant in this case is the spouse of a senior political office holder, this complaint has naturally elicited somewhat fevered public interest.

In connection with this matter and in the past 72 Hours, the Commission deployed a high level investigation team to Enugu. Professor Bem Angwe, the Executive Secretary of the Commission, led the team.

Upon returning from Enugu, the Executive Secretary, reflecting the public interest in this case, exercised judgement in authorizing and issuing on 8 November 2013 a public statement on the visit to Enugu. The full text of this statement is below.

As a practice, cases and complaints received by the Commission are processed in accordance with the National Human Rights Commission Act, (as amended) and with the Standing Orders and Rules of Procedure of the Commission.

Having carefully reviewed the work so far undertaken by the staff of the Commission, I find no bases in them for the claims or speculation, widely circulated in the media, that the Commission has pronounced on the state of health, physical or mental, of the complainant or indeed of any other party in this case.

The Commission takes seriously its responsibility to fully respect the confidentiality of parties before it and to reach its decisions only on the bases of law and evidence.

I should clarify that the team that the Commission sent to Enugu did not include any medical personnel. It had neither a mandate nor the expertise to pronounce on such matters and has clearly not done so. This is evident on the face of the Statement by the Executive Secretary.

Allegations also that the Commission may have been compromised in the conduct of the case are both factually inaccurate and manifestly unfounded.

While we remain grateful for the growing interest from the public in the work of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria and support for this work, I wish to please appeal to the public to respect the rights and dignity of the parties to pending cases and respect the integrity of the processes of the Commission, guaranteed by its Governing Council.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TEXT OF PRESS STATEMENT ON THE INTERIM REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED INCARCERATION OF HER EXCELLENCY MRS CHIME

The National Human Rights Commission received a complaint from the wife of the Governor of Enugu State Her Excellency Mrs. Clara Chime, in which she alleged to have been incarcerated and subjected to horrific and intolerable conditions that curtailed her fundamental freedoms and threatened the enjoyment of her human rights.

The Commission wrote to the Governor and demanded for access to the complainant in order to obtain more details and to carry out a thorough investigation of the issues raised in the complaint.

Yesterday, I led a team of investigators to the Government House Enugu and we were granted unhindered access to both Mrs. Chime and her apartment in the Government House.

The investigating team held a five hour meeting with Governor Chime, Mrs. Clara Chime, Dr. Jide Chime (the Governor's sibling) Dr. Aham Agumoh (who has been treating Mrs. Chime) and Tony Igwe, the complainant's elder brother during which the complainant had an opportunity to state her case and also respond to the issues raised by her husband.

Dr. Uzegu A – a London based consultant psychiatrist and forensic examiner who is the doctor the complainant prefers, also joined the meeting through teleconference.

The team further held private sessions with Her Excellency Mrs. Clara Chime in her apartment, her husband, His Excellency Sullivan Chime, Mrs. Patience Igwe (Complainant's mother), and Edwin Igwe her brother. All the parties spoke freely and expressed their positions clearly.

We have confirmed that for the last two weeks Mrs. Chime had been confined to her apartment on medical advice for purposes of medical maintenance and security. But she confirmed having possession and control of keys to her apartment, which the team also inspected. We further confirmed that access to her son is not denied after his school and lesson hours.

Both parties have agreed that Mrs. Clara has medical challenges but have disagreement over how to handle her medical condition. The complainant told the Commission that she has lost confidence in the Physician presently handling her condition and no longer wants him to treat her. She further requested to have medical opinion of other medical doctors acceptable to her.

Both parties have agreed that the Commission assemble a team of independent medical experts to review her medical condition and advise on further steps to be taken in respect of her treatment.

We want to thank His Excellency Governor Chime, and Her Excellency, Mrs. Clara Chime his wife and all the persons that we interacted with during our visit for their cooperation with the Commissions team of investigators.

We also want to assure all the parties and Nigerians that the Commission will continue with the investigation of this matter and take appropriate decision that will be in the interest of all the parties and the Commission will not hesitate to invoke its further mandate to mediate between the parties with a view to reconciling them.

Finally we wish to reassure all Nigerians that this Commission is determined to be the instrument that will represent their dreams and aspirations. We wish to make it very clear that in the realm of human rights protection, there is no immunity against impunity.

Prof. Bem Angwe

Executive Secretary

8th November, 2013

THE Right To Be Free From Torture, Inhumane & Degrading Treatment

The Right To Be Free From Torture, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment

Torture is defined under the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984, Article 1; as that which involves "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Actions which fall short of Torture may still constitute 'Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment' under Article 16 of the same Convention.

As can be gleaned from the above Article provision, every person has a right not to be tortured or treated in an inhumane or degrading manner which inflicts pain, suffering – mental or physical by or with the consent of a Public Official, which in the Nigerian milieu includes Law Enforcement agents, with the motive of obtaining a confession or information or even to intimidate such a person in the respect of any proceedings that is taking place or will take place in a court of law. This Right has been clearly safeguarded locally by the provision of the Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and also the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act (2011). These Sections provide to the effect that every individual is entitled to respect for their dignity of person and as such no person shall be subject to any forms of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; furthermore, the Evidence Act in Sections 28 and 29 provide to the effect that a confession obtained from an accused in a criminal proceeding would not be taken by the Court as relevant evidence where it was obtained by any inducement, threat or oppression. Oppression is defined in Section 29 (5) the Evidence Act (2011) to include "torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and the use of threat of violence whether or not amounting to torture". This is so, for the reason that such a confession would be seen to have been obtained involuntarily.

In our society today we see various forms of torture ranging from, use of hot irons on detainees, derivation of food and sleep, flogging, hanging detainee upside down and several sinister acts from members of the Armed Forces in the obtaining of information and or confessions from detainees.

It is but trite truth that any man who is in the position of tortuous pressure would say anything to spare himself of that suffering; this of course is the fore-background to why the Courts would not accept evidence from a prosecution which has been obtained by means of torture and inhumane treatment. A Shakespearian play 'Merchant of Venice', thus quotes; "Ay, but fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything" – In other words, where a man is but under such tortuous pressure, he would but say anything that would get him free.

Know Your Right.

For More Info, Visit;

- www.legalaidcouncil.gov.ng
- www.nulai.org (NULAI)
- www.uniabujalawclinic.com
- www.facebook.com/UniversityOfAbujaLawClinic
- www.twitter.com/UniAbjLawClinic
- http://gplus.to/RiDeCampaign
- http://twitter.com/RiDeCampaign
- http://facebook.com/TheRiDeCampaign

To Contact the RiDe Team
Ridecampaign@gmail.com (Email Us)
08060258649, 08072009099 (Call Us)
@RiDeCampaign (Tweet At Us)

Right To A Counsel (2) - The Miranda Rights #RiDeCampaign

RIGHT TO A COUNSEL (2) - THE MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Right to Counsel is a fundamental right in Nigeria by virtue of Section 35 (2) of the Constitution. In analysing this right and the akin rights to Silence and Protection Against Self-Incrimination, we consider the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

Ernesto Miranda was a school dropout with a criminal record. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested at his home on suspicion of having kidnapped and raped a somewhat retarded eighteen year old girl. He was taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. The complainant (victim) identified him at the station. Miranda was then questioned in an interrogation room by two police officers. (The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was never advised that he had a right to have a lawyer present.) After two hours in a police interrogation room, Miranda signed a written confession to the crimes. Not only had Miranda not been advised of his Right to Counsel, he was also not alerted that he had a right to remain silent, or to be protected against self-incrimination. Yet at the top of his written confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntarily made, without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."

Despite his lawyer's objections, the confession was presented as evidence at the ensuing trial. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to Twenty to Thirty years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession, and affirmed the conviction. In reaching its decision, the Arizona Supreme Court emphasized the fact that Miranda never specifically requested counsel.

The case of Miranda v Arizona eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which quashed Miranda's conviction, reversing the lower courts decisions. The Supreme Court held that - WITHOUT the REQUISITE WARNINGS as to the RIGHT to COUNSEL and to have one present during interrogation, and as to the privilege against self-incrimination, the statement was inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement, which contained a standard form clause stating that he had full knowledge of his legal rights, does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.

(Miranda was later re-tried, convicted on the strength of other evidence than the purported confession, and served eleven years. He was paroled in 1972 and died of bar brawl stab wounds in 1976, aged 34. A suspect was arrested for the Miranda homicide, but he invoked his Miranda right to silence, and had to be released. No one was ever charged with the killing of Miranda.)

Miranda went to the United States Supreme Court along with three other similar cases: Vignera v New York, Westover v United States, and California v Stewart. In each of the four cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting counsel in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of the cases, signed statements as well, which were admitted at trial. All defendants were convicted. In respective intermediate appeals, three of the convictions were affirmed. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the four cases were considered ensemble. The Supreme Court held as follows:

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way, unless the prosecution shows that effective procedural safeguards to secure the Fifth Amendment privilege against Self-Incrimination were used. (The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ordains that "No person shall … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself … ").

The atmosphere and environment of interrogation is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against Self-Incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

The privilege against Self-Incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of the adversary system and guarantees the individual the "Right to Remain Silent Unless He Chooses To Speak In The Unfettered Exercise of His Own Free Will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations.

To safeguard the privilege against Self-Incrimination, the following measures must be observed;

(i) Prior to interrogation, the person in custody must be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he says may be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

(ii) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he says he wants a lawyer, the questioning must cease until a lawyer is present.

2. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of a lawyer and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

The fact that a person in custody has already started talking or answering questions does not and cannot operate as a waiver of his privilege, and he always remains at liberty to invoke his right to silence at any subsequent time.

The requisite warnings and, in cases where the defendant does not utilise his rights the waiver as well, are conditions precedent to the admissibility of any statement, whether inculpatory or otherwise, made by a defendant.

3. In each of these four cases (Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewartthe) statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for the protection of the privilege against Self-Incrimination.

The significance of Miranda is not in establishing or recognizing the Rights to Counsel, Silence, and Protection Against Self-Incrimination. At the date of the Miranda decision, these rights were already long hallowed in American constitutional law. The importance of the Miranda precedent lay in requiring these rights to be clearly explained to the suspect by law enforcement personnel before any interrogation. Ignorance of these rights is an excuse for the uninformed suspect to later jettison any statement he makes without having been alerted of them. A right is hardly meaningful if the entitled are unaware of its existence. A statement made to law enforcement would not be admissible, unless, prior to making it, the maker had been advised of his Miranda rights, and either exercised them or voluntarily waived them.

"Reading him his rights" has long become a standard and vital component of U.S. law enforcement and criminal justice.

Thus, Miranda is vital in saying that NOT ONLY DOES THE INDIVIDUAL HAVE THE RIGHTS TO SILENCE, COUNSEL AND PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, but also HAS THE RIGHT TO BE EDUCATED OR REMINDED OF THESE RIGHTS at the outset of the relevant adversarial encounter with the criminal justice system or law enforcement apparatus.

It is important to note that the 'Miranda Rights' are of American origin and thus are not a part and parcel of our legal system. However, it does have a persuasive effect on our Courts, guiding the courts in the admissibility of evidence given especially where such did not conform to the norms of questioning and detaining a suspect.

Notwithstanding, applicable in Nigeria is the Judges Rules, which is in effect and context similar to the Miranda rights. We shall treat this in our next post.

Know Your Rights!!!

Brought To You By The RiDe Campaign Team.

Contact Us : ridecampaign@gmail.com (email) or @RiDeCampaign (Twitter) or 08060248649/ 08072009099/ 08062511524 (Call)

--
For More Info, Visit;

- www.legalaidcouncil.gov.ng

- www.nulai.org (NULAI)

- www.uniabujalawclinic.com

- www.facebook.com/UniversityOfAbujaLawClinic

- www.twitter.com/UniAbjLawClinic

- http://gplus.to/RiDeCampaign

- http://twitter.com/RiDeCampaign

- http://facebook.com/TheRiDeCampaign

The Right To A Counsel #RiDeCampaign

This right generally provides that anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to receive legal representation from an attorney. One of the rights of a person in detention is "The Right To A Counsel" and this right is meant to be provided and safeguarded by the State. A person who can afford an attorney is expected to be given the opportunity to exercise this right by being allowed to make contact with a legal practitioner of his choice. However, each state of the Federation is meant to make provision for a "Public Defender". The term 'Public Defender' is primarily coined to refer to a lawyer appointed to represent people who cannot afford to hire an attorney. In Nigeria, the Government has provided for Free Legal Aid through the office of the Legal Aid Council. Assistance is provided freely by the Legal Aid Council to people who cannot afford Legal representatives either because they are unemployed or earn very little money. Legal Aid ranges from rendering Legal service through consultation, advice or representation in Courts.

The Legal Aid Officer (LAO), from time to time, contacts Awaiting Trial Persons in Prison custody or suspected offenders in Police custody to take applications for Legal Aid. In a Criminal case, the Magistrate or Judge may inform the accused of his/her right to a Lawyer if by any reason he/she did not come in contact with a Legal Aid Officer before the trial. In some instances, the Magistrate or Judge may assign a 'state brief' to a private practitioner to handle a suspected offender's case. These have gone a long way in providing FREE legal representation for persons who cannot afford such.

Other Non-Governmental Legal Service Organizations also provide Legal Aid Services to complement the services being rendered by the Legal Aid Council. Non-Governmental Organizations like the Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP) helps provide these service through the The Indigent and Human Rights Defence Programme (IDP) which is aimed at addressing the human rights situation of indigent remand prisoners in Nigeria and to promote positive changes in the system of criminal justice in Nigeria. The IDP is one of the public defender programs of LEDAP through which it offers legal support, such as legal representation and counseling, to very poor and vulnerable people in Nigeria. The beneficiaries are mostly indigent prison inmates who are detained for long periods of time awaiting trial. These people are in prison custody because they could not afford the cost of hiring legal representation for their trial. The project provides legal assistance to indigent persons including remand prisoners and other indigent victims of human rights violations.

We must note that one of the challenges facing the Legal Aid Council and other Non- Governmental Legal Aid Service Organizations, is finances to keep up with the requirements of legal representation and payment of the salaries of lawyers. It is nonetheless, our hope and belief, that in the nearest future, the government would see reason to boost resources pumped into the provision of free Legal Aid to poor people.

Know Your Right!

Brought To You By #TeamRiDeCampaign

---
For More Info Visit

- www.legalaidcouncil.gov.ng

- www.nulai.org (NULAI)

- www.uniabujalawclinic.com

- www.facebook.com/UniversityOfAbujaLawClinic

- www.twitter.com/UniAbjLawClinic

- http://gplus.to/RiDeCampaign

- http://twitter.com/RiDeCampaign

- http://facebook.com/TheRiDeCampaign

RiDe Campaign - An Introduction

The Rights in Detention Campaign is a sensitization and advocacy initiative of the University of Abuja Law Clinic. The Campaign is headed by Stella Omole, Johannes Tobi Wojuola and Quincy Inoma in collaboration with members of the Law Clinic.

It is primarily aimed at providing enlightenment on the rights of persons who are in detention, especially awaiting trial detainees. Such rights are synonymous to those entitled to every Nigerian except that of personal liberty. A person detained is often looked at as a second class citizen, tortured while in custody and at times not afforded the rights accorded to awaiting trial detainees. Certain exclusive rights to arrested persons are those of Rights to Bail, to Fair Hearing, to Being Informed of Reason for Arrest and Right to Informing a Person of your choice of your being detained; sadly, several case scenarios have shown that these rights are barely enjoyed by the detainees. Thus a part of this project aims at enlightening members of the public, the armed forces and detainees of these and also the push for enforcement of these rights.

Through this medium, the RiDe Campaign of the University of Abuja Law Clinic would talk about issues that border on Human Rights, Enlightenment Programs and Case Studies as relates to the subject matter.

We do hope that you would give us your support as we make an impact in our community.

#TheRiDeCampaignTeam



--


For More Info Visit

- www.nulai.org (NULAI)
- www.uniabujalawclinic.com
- www.facebook.com/UniversityOfAbujaLawClinic
- www.twitter.com/UniAbjLawClinic
- http://gplus.to/RiDeCampaign
- http://twitter.com/RiDeCampaign
- http://facebook.com/TheRiDeCampaign

Right To Be Informed Of Charge(s) On Arrest #RiDeCampaign

The Right To Be Informed Of What You Are Being Charged With And The Right To Inform Your Loved Ones About Your Arrest -

We strongly believe that these are two of the preliminary rights of a detainee. In theory when a person is being arrested by the police, the police is meant to caution them in these words "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do will be used against you in the court of law" this is very similar to the Miranda Right or Warning which is being used in the United States of America. It should be noted that this caution has been put in place for a reason, the reason being that if the police does not read the person being arrested his rights anything he says or does during that period would not be admissible in the court of law. It renders any oral evidence given by the person inadmissible.

But ask yourself this "Is this really practiced in Nigeria? How many people have you heard say that the police cautioned them while they were being arrested or before they were arrested?" As said, this rule only exists on paper in our country and not in practice.

Secondly, a detainee has the Right to a phone call to inform a member of his family or his friend about his arrest so at least they would know where he is and start making arrangements to facilitate his release if possible.
In Nigeria today the police just carries out raids and mass arrests without giving the persons being arrested the opportunity to inform their relatives or friends about their whereabouts. I believe this is criminal in the least because it bears a close resemblance to the offence of "Kidnapping". Most times people are arrested and they spend weeks, months or even years in detention without anyone knowing their whereabouts, sometimes the persons' family may be forced to believe the person either ran away or is dead. The families of the accused suffer both mental and emotional trauma because they are uncertain about the fate of their loved one, not knowing that they are being detained. It also really affects the detainee because he is being shut out from the outside world without any hope of help from people that care about him. Prolonged incommunicado detention is incompatible with the substantive liberty inherent in the fundamental right to due process of law. The right to communicate with relatives should be preserved unless the state demonstrates that the denial of such communication is necessary based on a demonstrable risk to national security or the safety of any person.

We do hope that a large scale re-orientation is carried out on our criminal justice system because it is the means whereby the state implements it's laws and not a means to unjustly lock people away. This we hope to achieve in the coming months.

Know Your Right!!!

Team RiDeCampaign.