By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

There have been some issues arising of recent whereby some persons use the powers of the law enforcement agencies or security agencies to either intimidate or bully other persons. Even in civil relationship, some persons are fond of using some of these law enforcement and or security agencies such as: the police or the soldiers or the security service especially where they have one relationship and or the other with any of those law enforcement and or security agencies’ officers (even with ordinary corporal!) to harass others. Landlord-tenant relationship is another of such many-reported cases where either the landlord or the tenant either bullies or intimidates or threatens the other, among other cases of abuse of powers and or privileges.

In my humble view, not only the officers used to achieve these abuses are wrong but also those who invite those officers to the victimization of their other persons (or opponents) in civil matters. This paper is of the firm view that if only those individuals (victims) would start to utilize fundamental rights enforcement in the court of law as a tool of securing justice for themselves and or the victims, all these cases of abuse and misuse of powers would reduce drastically. I also observe that many victims only take the headache of being at the mercy of their bullying-partner as their challenge rather than using the mercenary of the law under the fundamental rights enforcement procedures to secure a quick and manifest justice.

Fundamental rights are rights guaranteed in the Constitution and they are rights which every person is entitled to, when he is not subject to the disabilities enumerated in the Constitution to be enjoyed by virtue of being a human being. They are basic that they are entrenched in a particular chapter of the Constitution. See: Odogwu v A.G. Federation (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 455) p. 508, Ratio 6. Human rights or fundamental human rights are provided for by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)- herein after referred to as the Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights-herein after referred to as ACHPR, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights , among other laws. These are general human rights laws. There are other laws that are specific human rights laws such as: (i) Anti-torture Act, LFN, 2017 (ii) Freedom of Information Act, LFN, 2011 (iii) Child’s Rights Act, 2003 (iv) Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009- herein after referred to as FREPR, among others.

Furthermore, under the Constitution, Chapter IV has laid down all the fundamental rights that every person as a Nigerian citizen is entitled to. Also, under the Constitution, section 46 and Order II Rule I of the FREPR provide that ‘any person who alleges that any of the provisions of the Constitution in Chapter IV is being or has been or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court for redress. Also, Chapter II of the Constitution contains some human rights which are not generally justiciable concerning some judicial proceedings on that issue unless there is a statute or another part of the Constitution giving the force of law to them or any of them.

Furthermore, under the ACHPR, Part II, Chapter I has established the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights under Article 30, to promote human and peoples’ rights and ensure their protection in Africa.

Furthermore, the Economic Community for West African State-herein after referred to as ECOWAS-, Court of Justice established pursuant to the ECOWAS protocol can also be utilized on the enforcement of human and peoples’ rights.

The Preamble to the FREPR has stated the overriding objectives of the FREPR in item 1 thus ‘‘The Court shall constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the overriding objectives of these Rules at every stage of human rights action, especially whenever it exercises any power given to it by these Rules or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets any rule. 1. Parties and their representatives shall help the Court to further the overriding objectives of these Rules. 2. The overriding objectives of these Rules are as follows: a. The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protections intended by them. b. For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal, regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these bills constitute instruments in themselves or form parts of larger documents like constitutions. Such bills include; i. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other Instruments (including protocols) in the African regional human rights system,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human rights system, a. For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court may make consequential orders as may be just and expedient. b. The Court shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice for all classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate, the uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the unrepresented.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy for me to emphasise here that the FREPR is sui generis i.e. of its own rules and procedures. For instance, in the case of Enukeme v Mazi (2015)17 NWLR (1488)411 C.A. at page 434 paras. A-C, Mbaba, J.C.A. (delivering the leading judgment), held thus ‘I must start by stating the obvious, that Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure is sui generis, being specially and specifically designed with its own unique rules by the Constitution, to address issues of fundamental rights of persons protected under the Constitution. Of course, consideration of issues founded on breaches of fundamental rights in this case must be handled within the exclusive confines of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, which actually came to correct some perceived wrongs and hardship which the 1979 Rules (fashioned on the 1979 Constitution) caused to applicants seeking enforcement of their fundamental rights, especially in the areas of adherence to undue technicalities and delays in determining applications’. The case of Loveday v Comptroller, Fed. Prisons Aba (2013) 18 NWLR (pt. 1386) 379 C.A. is also humbly referred to.

Finally, it is my humble belief that the fundamental rights enforcement if utilized in cases where any person attempts to or uses his connection or relationship with one or more of any of the government’s law enforcement or security agencies to either bully or intimidate or threaten his opponent, justice would better be better served rather than the ‘being at his mercy’ syndrome that usually happens in all these scenarios. The likely victim is also urged and or advised not to look at the time, finance, etc, that are likely to be involved in instituting the action in the court of law to either seek declaratory or injunctive or compensatory reliefs in the court of law (whose compensatory damages are likely to be awarded even in millions of naira against the alleged oppressors). The court of law is better to be approached (as the last hope of the common man) rather than seeking self-help and unlawful retaliation that aim at placing the victim of the violation of human rights in a position or status of a criminal or suspect (moreover, two wrongs they say, do not make a right).

Email: [email protected]