|
POLICY ADVOCACY FORUM
STATE BUDGET AND THE CITIZEN
Welcome to Policy Advocacy Forum column. The forum
is an agenda of the Economic, social and cultural
(ESC) Rights of the Institute of Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law (IHRHL), an advocacy network based
in the Niger Delta region. The idea is to call
attention to the fact that democracy is a system
whereby the whole society can participate, at every
level of policy and decisions. Its foundation is the
full observance of human rights, as defined by both
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Vienna Pacts and Declaration of 1993. And the
promotion of those rights and the respect of
differences and of freedom of speech and thought are
indispensable preconditions for democracy.
A true democracy therefore, cannot be restricted to
its institutional framework alone. It also needs to
be embodied in a culture, a state of mind that
fosters tolerance and respect for other people, as
well as pluralism, equilibrium and dialogue between
the forces that make up a society. This concept
requires all social, financial, governmental and
non-governmental actors, as well as the relationship
which links or separates them, to be taken into
account. These basic democratic principles
constitute a fundamental source of common values
that can be described as the common heritage of
humankind. Without those values there can be neither
democracy nor sustainable development.
Our passivity, or better still our ignorance could
be said to have been primarily responsible for the
kind of brigand or complete lack of transparency and
accountability that is witnessed in the activities
of governance in our environment, today. Ignorance
had robbed us of the capacity to act. Let us take
the State budget for instance. Of all things, some
may say, why must citizens bother themselves with
state budget and its processes, a technical matter
that must be to the preserve of an all-knowing
government and politicians. But the notion of
transparency and accountability which are in the
main, fundamental democratic requirement of good
governance, demands absolute need for activism in
this regard.
To be sure, human dignity is an inherent right of
all people. Human rights are the promises that
societies make to their members to assure that
dignity. These rights go beyond being mere promises,
however, they are also the law, be it by domestic
statute or international accord. Over time and
nation-by-nation, the nature of how those promises
are recognized and enshrined into law has changed.
Originally, human rights were mostly about
protecting civil liberties, such as the freedom of
speech, press, thought, movement and religion, and
freedom against torture and abuse – restrictions on
the excesses of governments against individuals. For
a century, our definitions of human rights have
expanded to include economic and social rights – to
health, food, income, housing and other basic needs
that governments must guarantee.
Public budgets are the instruments by which
governments raise and allocate the financial
resources of the state. They also are the means by
which governments provide for basic necessities that
relate to human rights. Public budgets are more than
a collection of numbers, they are a declaration of a
community’s or nation’s priorities. From a human
rights perspective, budgets are the concrete means
by which governments either fulfill or violate human
rights requirements. One further cardinal reason,
therefore, why as citizens we must gather, share
information to enable us effectively monitor and
influence government budget making, so that
‘FRUGALITY’ in Rivers State, for example, must not
continue to amount to empty words.
To appreciate the urgent need for action by citizens
in this sphere, it would be most effective for the
people to understand those who do not own public
money, although some of them think they do, by the
reckless manner they share and donate the same:
Public money does not belong to the governor of the
state nor his public managers: they are merely
agents and in the public service; it does not belong
to the Auditor-General or ministry of finance, even
if their officials sometimes act as if it does; it
does not belong to taxpayers: they have given it up;
it does not belong to the central bank, just as the
money deposited in our accounts at a commercial bank
does not belong to that bank. It does not belong to
the Executive Local Government Chairmen either.
Public money belongs to the community of citizens of
a state. That is ‘the people’ The people for our
purpose means the enduring society that underlies
the manifest structures of the state. The people
consist of all generations, ethnic groups,
communities and classes that have a stake in public
life. The institutions being funded by public money
are created to render services either directly to
the people, or indirectly, by rendering services to
the authorities. The authorities are the government
and other officials of the state. These public
institutions have no reason to exist other than to
render services to the people as members of that
political community called the state. No other
agenda than service is legitimate. The basic norms
of our states are set out in the Constitution. They
place certain limits on the demands that can be made
of public institutions. Specifically, the people
cannot demand that public institutions commit
violations of human rights.
In keeping with the idea of democracy, as
exemplified in the Constitution, the shareholding in
public money is based on the equality of all
citizens. Every member of the state owns, to put it
figuratively, a single share in public money. More
accurate, a single share in various public funds.
These shares cannot be done away with. Therefore, if
there is any difference in the benefits citizens
derive from public money, that difference must be
just and fare, or equitable. Philosophers speak of
‘distributive justice’. There must be equity in the
distribution of public goods and services – one of
the primary issues in public sector ethics,
especially in a country like ours.
COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED AT THE
LEGISLATIVE ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE AT THE FREEDOM HALL
OF THE HUMANITY HOTEL, PORT HARCOURT – SEPTEMBER 14,
2004
The Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
organized a one day Legislative Roundtable Dialogue
at the Humanity Hotels, Rukpokwu town, in Obio/Akpor
Local Government Area of Rivers State, on September
14, 2004. The Roundtable Dialogue which was
supported by the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), Washington, DC, United States of America,
focused on the theme, “State of Insecurity in Rivers
State: Recent Anti-Cult Law the Solution?, had high
level government officials, security agencies,
academics, scholars, the media and civil society
activists as participants.
Among those present at the event were Chief N.S.
Okogbule, Esq. Head of Department of Jurisprudence
and International Law, and former Dean of Law,
Rivers State University of Science and Technology,
Nkpolu, Port Harcourt, Professor A. Jinadu, the
Executive Director of the Centre for Advanced Social
Science, Hon. Martin Amaewhule, the leader of the
Obio/Akpo Legislative Council, Mr. William Fugah,
senior personnel of the State Security Service,(SSS),
representing the State Director, Barrister C.C.
Onwumere, representing the Rivers State Commissioner
of Police, Dr. Lucky Akaruese, Senior Lecturer,
Department of Philosophy, University of Port
Harcourt, and former President of the Committee for
the Defence of Human Rights, Dr. Steve Wodu of the
Sociology Department of University of Port Harcourt,
Mr. Sampson Ikonwa of Transparency International,
and Dr. Chris Akani, the Executive Director of the
Institute of Academic Freedom etc.
The forum, having copiously debated the keynote
presentation, broke into three syndicate groups,
which extensively deliberated on the following:
Group One looked at the Legal and Political Context;
Group two looked at the Socio-Legal Context while
Group three looked at the Economic and Legal
Context. The syndicate groups reported back to the
plenary, and upon effective consideration, the
Roundtable Dialogue noted the following findings:
That in civilized society, grave violence of this
nature is unacceptable as a means to an end .
That the violence in Rivers State which has
brought about the high level of insecurity to lives
and property, can no longer be trivialized as mere
cultism or gangsterism but more of a rebellion by
groups that were tolerated by the State.
That there are too many illegal small arms in the
hands of violent groups in the state, which has been
used to torture, harass, terrorise, maim, and
slaughter unsuspecting law abiding citizens and
destroy property valued in millions of naira in the
state.
That the presence of these arms and ammunitions
has not only heightened the state of insecurity and
intimidation in the state but poses a serious threat
to political, economic, social and environmental
life of the state.
That the presence of these small arms can be
traced to the political elite, which brought in
these arms, armed youths in pursuit of their
electoral ambition.
That there is deep-rooted intra-ethnic and
inter-ethnic divide in the state, which is being
exploited by the political elite, thereby fueling
more violence.
That there is clear collusion between the security
officials and the political elite, which impeded the
security agencies from effectively carrying out
their responsibilities under the Constitution.
That the security system in Rivers State as a
direct result has failed, a fact openly admitted by
the Executive Governor of Rivers State, Dr. Peter
Odili, who asked for an overhaul of the security
system.
That the over concentration of power on the
executive without the required effective check by
the Legislature under the Constitution, has turned
the executive into thin-gods, with limitless powers,
including the power of the purse.
That the Nigerian political culture is centred on
primitive acquisition of power, because of the
incredible wealth that is attached to political
offices
That the Rivers State Government has so far,
failed to show political leadership and will to curb
violence in the State.
That lack of information sharing, transparency,
partnership, transparency, responsiveness and
complete aversion to criticisms, contributed
immensely to the broadening of violence and
insecurity in state.
That any government that fails to meet the basic
Constitutional requirement of protecting lives and
property of its citizens and aliens alike, is a
failed state.
That the enactment of the Secret Cult and Similar
Activities (Prohibition) Law, No. of 2004, though a
welcome development, but cannot on its own curb the
high level of violence and insecurity in the State,
especially so in its present form.
Therefore, the Roundtable Dialogue having dutifully
observed that the on-going crisis in Rivers State
has disrupted markedly the political, socio-economic
life of the State ; and have the potential of
seriously threatening the current democratic
transition and national security because of the
place of Rivers State in the Niger Delta Region and
Nigeria as a whole, if allowed to escalate,
recommended thus:
That the government must hence show effective
leadership, exhibit a political will and well
thought-out strategies to address the very serious
state of insecurity, beyond rhetoric or simply
blaming the unsuspecting victims. The state should
take the plights of displaced persons and all other
victims who have lost property and lives seriously,
with the view of compensating them adequately.
That the need for an honest, intensive and
strategic mopping up small of arms cannot be
overemphasized. Since it has become most obvious
that the Government on its own, cannot bring the
situation to a logical conclusion, there should be
an urgent broader Stakeholder forum, which should
bring in various shades of opinions, such as
independent minded religious groups, civil society
organisations, statesmen and women, the media, etc
within the state to rationally profer effective
solutions. This Stakeholder must be devoid of
destructive sycophants.
That the presence of the military in the State is
commendable for an initial shock aimed at
deescalation; but seriously urge the same to
effectively restrain itself in the manner of combat
and use of weapons of human destruction, in what
must be rightly regarded as an internal security
exercise. At all times, the civilian population must
be respected, protected and environmental and
cultural heritage preserved in accordance with
universal standards of international humanitarian
law, governing internal conflicts.
• That the Secret Cult and Similar Activities
(Prohibition) Law No. 6 of 2004, although a major
step against the current rebellion, needs because of
its identified porosity, an expeditious Public
Hearing for broader input to help fine tune the
contentious arbitrariness in the law.
• That the special Court provided for by the said
Law be speedily set up by the State Judiciary, and
the security agencies, especially the Nigeria
Police, be given free hand to arrest, investigate
and prosecute offenders in accordance with due
process of law.
• That poverty of the majority of peoples of the
state in the midst of abundance, is a menace that
must be checked and treated with the utmost urgency
that it deserves. That sustainable skills
acquisition, empowerment programmes and employment
be provided to keep thousands youths without hope,
away from becoming the devils workshop.
• That politics should be democratized to allow for
greater popular participation.
• That the fundamental rights and freedoms of
individuals, groups should be respected at all
times.
• That the use overwhelming force in the ongoing
conflict as final solution is not going to yield the
desired result of ridding the state of small arms
and those who have been encouraged to use it. Above
all, the brutality required for its application in a
demoracy is morally unacceptable today. The civilian
casualities will make this strategy too costly to
apply in whole. That in drawing up strategies for
resolving the present conflict, other silent
grievances within the state should be included and
dealt with.
• That resolution of the conflict should be sought
through negotiation. Negotiation and third party
intervention, preferably from within the sister
states of the region shall make deescalation and
final resolution easier and cheaper.
• Finally, that the Government of Rivers State
should not be afraid of facing the truth in the
ongoing conflict, inspite of the fact that it may
harm their interests and their standing in society.
If the truth is accepted in the public interest,
there are certain things to revise, correct and
change in their ideas, opinions, judgements and in
the wisdom they think they possess, in the general
interest of the peoples.
• That political chauvinism fosters hatred among
peoples. That if chauvinism were to disappear, we
would be happier in the state.
POLICY ADVOCACY FORUM
SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IS A RIGHT, NOT A
PRIVILEGE
An important objective of the planning process in
any responsive and people oriented government, must
be to ensure that poverty and deprivation are
removed from the face of the local, state and
federal government. The fact that Nigeria counts for
one of the largest number of poor in any country in
the world, belittle its existence and efforts.
The preamble of the Constitution placed ‘Justice –
Social, Economic and Political’ as one of the
primary objectives of the Sovereign Democratic
Republic of Nigeria. An important part of our
Constitution, especially for the poor and the
marginalized is the Directive Principles of the
State Policy. A part of the Directive Principles –
envisaged a social order in which, social order in
which, social, economic and political justice would
be the guiding principles of all institutions of
national life. It also visualized the right to
adequate means of livelihood. The Constitution
stipulated that the State shall, within the limits
of its economic capacity and development, make
effective provision for securing the right to work,
to education and to public assistance. There is a
mandate that the State promote with special care the
educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections of society, in particular, from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation. The State
is enjoined as a matter of duty to raise the level
of nutrition and standard of living of the peoples.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
proclaimed in 1948 that every individual has a right
to a standard of living adequate for health and well
being of himself and his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care as well as
necessary social security. But even today, that is
over half a century of the UDHR, over 90 per cent of
the people living in the Niger Delta region of
Nigeria live below the poverty line.
The right to food, primary education and primary
health care are all part of the 1967 International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ESC) rights, which has been ratified by 137
countries to date. ESC rights have been recognized
in all major international treaties protecting the
human rig hts of vulnerable groups. ESC rights have
also been affirmed at the world conference in Rio de
Janeiro (on Development & Environment), Vienna (on
Human Rights) and Rome (on Food Security). Finally,
ESC rights have been incorporated into regional laws
through organizations such as African Union, as well
as our domestic laws in the form of our
Constitutional rights and national legislation.
The international law on ESC rights provides a
legal, political and moral framework to challenge
policies that perpetrate poverty and inequality.
Just as our government are accountable for denying
adequate food, housing, health care or education,
ESC rig hts also provide a framework for us to
participate in claiming our own rights. This enables
affected individuals, communities and civil society
groups to demand legal accountability in situations
where policy-makers would prefer to obscure the
lines of responsibility and avoid public scrutiny.
The key to this new comprehensive understanding of
the nature of development is to be found in its
focus on the centrality of the human person. The
very first paragraph of the Rio Declaration of the
United Nations Conference on the Environment and
Development, which took place over a decade ago,
stressed that ‘human beings are at the center of
concerns for sustainable development.” Integral
developments by our representatives in government
must therefore, address each of the following
priorities: human dignity, the unity of the human
family and the integrity of creation. Each
individual human person retains his inalienable
dignity. The person, no doubt, can only flourish
within the interdependence of the human family and
through responsible use of the goods of God’s
creation.
Development to be sure, is about realizing human
capacity. It is about each human person being able
to become the person that he or she was created to
be. Such a vision involves moving from
assistantialism (dash, dash and Ghana-must-go) to
real empowerment. It means moving away from a policy
in which people living in poverty in Rivers State,
are considered objects of intervention, to one in
which they become protagonists of their own
development.
We must as citizens claim these rights. Until we do,
those entrusted with running the affairs of our
lives would continue to see us as beggars of
development. We must insist on the rights-based
approach to development. We must campaign, cajole
and insist that the Judiciary for one, become
pro-active and deploy judicial activism in dealing
with submitted cases of ‘the public interest
litigation’. Outmoded concepts of ‘locus standi’
must not stand in the way of taking the sufferings
of our abject poor and deprived, most seriously. Our
campaigns should link the rights to food, primary
education and basic health services to the right to
life, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by our
Constitution. Let us not be discouraged by the
depraved argument that the directive principles are
not justiceable. We submit that it is not toothless.
In an effective representative democracy, government
is accountable to the Parliament, to the electorate
and to the people at large for realization of the
directive principles. It is sad fact that this
vision of accountability continue to elude us in
this state since May 1999.
To be sure, there has not been a qualitative change
in public perception about the responsibilities of
the State towards the deprived sections of our
society, since the inception of our new transition.
We must bind together and throw our weight in favour
of the rights-based approach to development.
Democratic decentralization must be made real. We
must take the power of the ballot most seriously,
inspite of impending political violence which is
usually aimed at intimidating and actual slaughter.
Civil society groups must not relent in taking
grassroots mobilization and awareness creation, to
the apex of their activities and as a matter of
policy continue to create additional bottom-up
impulse against state and local autocracy. This
struggle is going to be long drawn, but time to
insist on our rights to development is now.
The primary function of the State, its raison d’etre,
is to guarantee the fundamental security of its
citizens. This has been traditionally thought of in
terms of guaranteeing the security from external
attack. Guaranteeing the security of its citizens,
however, also means that the State responds to the
fundamental needs of each person and to the common
good of the community. Fundamental human rights do
not derive from the State, they oblige the State!
|
