|
INTRODUCTION
I think, I should better begin this lecture by recalling
the words of the US President Bill Clinton in June 1998 on
the issue of Human Rights. Said he:
“I believe that everywhere, people aspire to be treated
with dignity… to give voice to their opinions … to choose
their own leaders… to associate with whom they wish … to
worship when, where and how they want. Those are not
American rights or European rights or developed world
rights. Those are the birth rights of people every where”1
Also, Shridath S. Ramphal, the secretary general of the
Common Wealth at Banglore (India) in February, 1988 and
also in Harare (Zimbabwe) in April 1989 left the following
wise words:
“the quest world-wide for the effective realization of
fundamental human rights in all their manifestations-
economic, social, political, cultural, is one which has
come to characterize much of the twentieth century. This
was a process, which could only begin once the
universality of the human condition and of the rights and
needs fundamental to it, were clearly and unambiguously
recognized. It needed, first, a renunciation of human
bondage in all forms like slavery, and indenture and of
course commitment to the decolonization process. This
process of change is by no means ended, as the persisting
stain of apartheid in South Africa bear sordid witness.
But the quest for respect for the wider rights of humanity
is well underway”.2
from the above quotations, many characteristics which form
the basis for the recognition and efforts for the
protection of Fundamental Human Rights can be gleaned as
well as their dimensions.
In the course of this paper, I shall examine these basic
characteristics on which the philosophy of Human Rights is
hinged.
It is quite pertinent to point out here that although this
topic is quite an abstract one, yet a careful and rapt
attention from you will ensure a more practical
understanding of the concept of Human Rights.
DEFINITION
For any meaningful discussion on human rights to be done
here, it is necessary to define, albeit briefly, my terms
as I shall use them in this paper. This is necessary
because some writers tend to confuse them. The term “Human
Rights” is a compendious and all-embracing expression,
which includes Political, Civil (Private and Public) as
well as fundamental rights.
“ Human Rights” in one form or the other are as old as man
in society and have always been there independently of and
before the state.3
“Political Rights”, often regarded as part of civil rights
refer to those rights which a man may assert or enjoy in
the government of his particular state.
“Civil Rights” are on the other hand, a plethora of
rights, which are enforced as between person and person,
or person and authority or government by the ordinary
courts in any civilized society.
“Fundamental Rights” are those aspects of human rights as
recognized which have been selected from the plethora of
human rights, and entrenched, guaranteed and protected by
a written constitution. It is sometimes referred to as
“fundamental human rights”.
Constitutional rights are those rights spelt out or
recognized by the constitution.
THE DISCOURSE:
Whether referred to as Fundamental Rights,5 or
Fundamentals Human Rights4, or Fundamentals Human and
Peoples Rights6 and so on, they simply refer to those
“birth rights of people everywhere” as Bill Clinton puts
it.
All over the world, thousand of people are in prison
because of their beliefs. Many are held without charge or
trial. Torture and the death penalty are wide spread. In
many countries, men, women, and children have
“disappeared” after being taken into official custody.
Still others have been put to death without any pretence
of legality: selected and killed by the governments and
their agents.
Considering that every person has the right freely to hold
and to express his or her convictions and the obligation
to extend a like freedom to others, the object of the
teaching and learning of the concept of “Human Rights”
shall be to secure throughout the world, the observance of
the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The cardinal philosophy behind the entire doctrine of
Human Rights, as has been seen in the various Universal
and Regional Declarations is that all men, ethnic origin,
sex, colour, or language, and as such, should be entitled
to equal opportunities/chances to favourably compete with
others as well as assert themselves without any form of
molestation or intimidation provided that they did not use
or advocate violence. That is the theory of the Rule of
Law.
Some factors in the history of Africa should make us
automatically more than interested parties in every
discussion on Human Rights. Thee is the sordid record of
slavery and slave trade, whereby millions of our ancestors
were regarded as mere chattels and, after being subjected
to untold acts of muscovardo, barbarity and inhumanity,
were carted across our boarders and used for cheap forced
labour. There is colonialism with its accompanying
economic exploitation and anti-human rights assumptions of
superior and inferior races.
There were also some barbaric aspects of our culture,
which were clearly antithetic to modern concepts of human
rights as accepted by civilized world.
A reconciliation of the dark aspects of these events in
our history ought to instinctively make us embrace the
wave of change introduced by the modern concept and
practice of human rights, as accepted by civilized
societies all over the world. We ought to see human rights
for what they are to us- that is the only part open to us,
if we must restore the dignity of man in society.
ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
By origin of human rights, it is not meant to refer to the
natural source of human rights, which of course is divine,
rather it is meant to consider the point in history when
the issue of human rights attracted the focus of scholars
and later governments all over the world.
For centuries, there had been a good deal of effervescent
writings on human rights, such as those of Locke,7 Paine8
and Burke,9 which had triggered off such revolutions as
the “Bloodless Revolution” in England (1776) the French
Revolution (1789) and the American Revolution (1776). Even
Russia followed suit in 1917. The stage therefore became
set following these writing and traumatic events of World
War II. All the international powers came together at the
end of the Second World War in 1945 and unanimously
re-affirmed human rights and freedoms and committed
themselves to encourage and promote them worldwide.
This led to the unanimous adoption by the General Assembly
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December
1948. This declaration listed 31 Articles, which would
serve as models for human rights to be adopted all over
the world. After this some regional settings adopted and
or re-enacted the Declaration in order to concern it more
directly with its own people. One of such Regional
adoptions is the African Charter on Human and People’s
Rights (Nairobi 1981) which was an off-shoot of the
Organization of African Unity meeting in Monrovia, Liberia
in 1979, where the Charter was first adopted in principle.
Nigeria was one of the moving spirits, which made this
African Charter possible.
Again, Nigeria gave its stamp of approval by an Act of its
National Assembly in 1983 when the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement)
Act, 1983, was passed into law.
It may be noted, member however that the Charter was to
take effect after a simple majority of the member-states
of the OAU had ratified it. It according to Umozurike,10
up to 1988, only sixteen out of the fifty two states of
the OAU had ratified the Charter. I have no record of
subsequent or recent ratification.
This is unlike the UND Declaration for which machinery was
promptly set in place for its implementation-Council of
Minister-and that for its enforcement –the court on Human
Rights. It is also note worthy that what emerged in 1960
constitutions of Nigeria was a mere statement of
fundamental human rights. The constitution made no
provision for the enforcement machinery. Although power
was referred to the Chief Justice of the Federation10a to
make Rules for their enforcement, it was only recently
that such Rules have been made11.
THE PEPLE AND THEIR RIGHTS
The Rights, proclaimed by the UN Declaration of Human
Rights apply to all people. They have been incorporated
into many countries’ constitutions and laws and have been
further elaborated in other international human rights
standards adopted by the United Nations.
These Universal rights include the right to freedom of
expression, conscience and religion; to freedom from
arbitrary arrest and detention; the right to a fair trial;
the right to eye, liberty and Dignity of person, the right
not to be tortured, the right to freedom of movement,
association or assembly, the right to security.
Others are economic and social or cultural rights such as
right to work, right to adequate remuneration; adequate
standard of living, right to form or organize Trade
Unions, right to equal pay for equal work, right to own
property; right to education; right to cultural life and
to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress12.
In a society like Nigeria, where the greater number of the
people are illiterate and uninformed, and corruption
reigns supreme, the concept of Human Rights is an
illusion. This is because most of the people so not really
understand what constitutes their human rights and so
cannot assert it. Others who understand and know these
rights are too afraid to assert it for fear of
incarceration. Though sometimes not because of fear of
detention per se, but the thought of the state of our
police cells and prison yards had made some people to
waive their Human Rights and/or ignore their violations.
SCOPE OR AMBIT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human Rights could be seen masquerading as Natural Rights,
inalienable rights, inviolable rights, absolute rights,
and fundamental rights. John Finnis13 defines his absolute
rights as rights that are not be limited or overridden for
the sake of any conception of good life in community, not
even to prevent a catastrophe. His absolute rights are
“categorically exemptionless”
But on the other hand, our human rights, though divine in
nature are not absolute since they operate in, and subject
to the demands of (an orderly), society. The are rights
which are fact subject to exceptions in a trade off
against other rights and against public order and
morality.
According to Paine14 “Natural rights are those rights
which appertain to man in rights of his existence. Of this
kind are all the intellectual rights or rights of the
mind, and also of those rights of acting as an individual
of his own comfort and happiness which are not injurious
to the natural rights of others”.
In fact, for absolute human rights to be achieved, the
society should be abolished and people should be abolished
and people should be made to be alone and live alone their
worlds.
In fact must remain that some of the rights which have
come to be recognized as human rights in international law
are not realistically enforceable presently, but it is
generally agreed that the value of such rights to mankind
cannot be dismissed with a waive of hand.
In fact, to utilitarian, such as Bentham, human rights are
excessively individualistic, egoistic and there
propagation leads overriding what is conducive to the
happiness of society. They regard rights as constraints in
the pursuit of general welfare. To them, human rights are
not rights of individuals nut collective rights of
society. Bentham15 regards the French declarations as “a
perpetual vein of nonsense flowing from a perpetual abuse
of words”. To him, a natural right is simply nonsense.
“Natural and imprescriptibly rights rhetoric
nonsense-nonsense upon stilts”.
THE JUDICIARY AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
Abstract statements of rights in a constitution or other
statute, no matter how well thought out, do not mean much
until they have been interpreted by the courts. In the
end, these statements of rights are what our courts
ultimately the Supreme Court, say they are. And what the
courts will say will depend upon the calibre, qualities
and attitude of two sets of lawyers who constitute the
indispensable co-ordinates for justice,-the Bench and the
Bar.
If the Bar is knowledgeable, resourceful and courageous,
it will be able to put deserving cases ably, vigorously,
and convincingly before the courts, and if the judges are
also knowledgeable, courageous and in corruptible, they
will be able to interpret the human rights provisions in
such a way as to uphold the rights of citizens in
deserving cases. In a dynamic and ever-changing society
(like our own) in fact in most modern societies, the
courts especially the Supreme Court must be able, whenever
necessary, to free themselves from the restraining
shackles of retrogressive precedent and give a relief to
citizens who approach the court of justice with genuine
and deserving complaints on the infraction or violation of
their rights.
It can therefore be said that all over common law
jurisdictions the position of importance of the courts in
the enforcement of rights generally, and fundamental
rights in particular cannot be over-emphasized. They form
the fulcrum upon which the rule of law orbits. The wealth
of knowledge and experience as well as the orientation,
courage, stance, and integrity of the judges influence
their exercise of their interpretative jurisdictions and
approach to the enforcement of Human Rights.
CONCLUSION
By way of conclusion, the theory of Human Rights in
concerned with those attributes, which will naturally make
people live a maximally happy life if attained. The
essence of their recognition and local constitutions is to
ensure that people are not arbitrarily ruled or denied
some of the natural rights and freedoms which every living
person is ordinarily entitled to irrespective of their
social standing, ethnic origin, colour, sex or language as
natural endowments from God; To ensure that these rights
and freedoms are protected and to ensure that their
infractions are adequately redressed.
On the other hand, Human Rights theory many become
justification for revolution and other acts of political
violence. The three threats of rights theory-rationalism,
individualism and radicalism, may combine together to form
a dynamite in hands of extremists. That is why human
rights should not be open ended and unlimited. There
should be a sort of balancing between individual rights
and the rights of society to live secured in their persons
and property.
|
