Introduction
The scourge of
terrorism has since become a reality of our everyday existence. If some thirty
years ago, the exploits of the Con Bendits,
Symbionese Liberation Army, Bader
Meinhof’s Red Brigades, Japanese Red
Army, Tupamaros and Sendero Luminoso (or
the Shining Path), seemed remote,
sporadic or episodic, today, the atrocities of innumerable terrorist
groups all over the world especially, Islamic fundamentalists such as Al
Quaeda, Talibans and El Shabbab have
become commonplace and assumed an eerie permanence on the global landscape so
much so that people have now become numb to the successively outrageous nature of terrorist acts perpetrated by these common
enemies of humanity. The threat posed to international peace and security by
these modern day crusaders of evil is
such that the very survival of human civilization might well be in question
except and unless decisive action is taken by the international community to
arrest the growing incidence of terrorism. This explains the rationale for the
adoption by the family of nations of several international anti-terrorism
instruments whose signatories are obliged to implement them within their
respective legal orders.
Until recently, Nigeria
seemed to have been immune to terrorist activities. Indeed, this paper would
have seemed grossly out of place if it had been presented say, five years ago.
However, the horrendous acts of terrorism wrought in the hands of sundry local dissident forces
in the recent past would seem to have effectively put an end to all that. The
country has since lost its innocence as terrorist incidents masterminded by
MEND, the Boko Haram and some other faceless groups have become commonplace on
the nation’s landscape with deleterious consequences for our reputation and our
erstwhile smug satisfaction that it could not happen here.
The shibboleth of
Nigerians being the world’s happiest people with tremendous joie de vivre and who would,
therefore, not embrace suicide
missions or any ultra hazardous activities, for that matter, has since proven a
great exaggeration. As terrorist incident after terrorist incident occurred in
the country, the fact has now been rudely brought home to us that Nigerians are
indeed part of the human race and the earlier we came to grips with that
reality, the better for all of us.
It is against this
backdrop that the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 needs to be appraised.
Accordingly, it is intended in this presentation to examine the extant
anti-terrorism law in broad outline before zeroing-in on its salient aspects,
particularly the acts that are considered tantamount to terrorism and the
sanctions prescribed thereto, especially in light of the upsurge in terrorist
activities, especially masterminded by the Boko Haram. Besides, the effort by
the law-maker to strike a balance between human rights protection and the
necessity to contain terrorism would be adumbrated before assessing prospects
for achieving the intentions and efficacy of the attempt to contain terrorism
through the law.
The reaction of the
Nigerian authorities by putting in place actions aimed at stemming the rising
tide of terrorism and insecurity across the country seems quite understandable
and well-intentioned but except the anti-terrorist measures envisaged are
properly calibrated and well-focused, in the final analysis, they might be
tepid, insufficiently comprehensive, if
not downright dysfunctional and counter-productive. However, before coming to a
judgment either way, it seems apposite to grasp the essence of the phenomenon
and situate terrorism properly within the matrix of internal and external
dynamics of societal evolution.
Understanding
Terrorism: Domestic and International Perspectives
In simple language,
terrorism implies all acts aimed at compelling a person(s) to behave in a manner desired by the
terrorist at the pain of threat, intimidation or even death if the victim(s)
failed to behave as demanded by the terrorist(s). Furthermore, terrorist acts
are usually intended to elicit behaviour which ordinarily might not be in
agreement with the will of the victim(s) but targeted at certain politically
incorrect ends. Accordingly, illegitimate use of force or threat of same is, to
all intents and purposes, a manifestation, one way or another, of terrorism.
Furthermore, terrorism feeds on fear and resultant incapacitation by the victim
such that the terrorist thereby adorns the garb of impunity and invincibility
in the eyes of the victim(s).
In consonance with
social contract theories, the transition from the state of nature to the state
of civil society was effected by way of agreement among members of society to
transfer their natural right of self-preservation through making resort to self-help to the
state in consequence of which they can experience a peaceful existence, rest
assured of law and order, certainty, predictability in their co-habitation with
their neighbours and the rest of society. Accordingly, each and every member of
society is guaranteed peace and security in their interaction with other
members, with the state wielding its monopoly of force in protecting the common
weal.
In line with the
liberal democratic tradition, failure by government to afford the people
requisite protection from arbitrariness and illegal use of force by criminal
elements and social delinquents could quite easily warrant a change of the
government through the ballot-box at the next available opportunity. In light
of this, however, terrorism should be considered as constituting an affront to
democratic praxis and is, therefore, a deliberate and calculated attempt to
bring about change in society in an illegal, untoward and illegitimate fashion.
Accordingly, terrorism is frowned against by all who espouse a belief in
democracy and the rule of law.
Terrorism is tantamount
to insurrection and a thinly-veiled attempt to overthrow the status quo. What
this means, in effect, is that where and when every member of society is
assured of his day in court, there would be no room or justification for
terrorist acts. However, denial of justice and resort to terrorist acts by the
government itself could well provide much-needed ammunition to forces that do
not wish it well and who may now insist
on a policy of “fighting fire with fire,” thereby giving rise to the aphorism
of one man’s terrorist being another’s freedom fighter. Nevertheless, however
justifiable the motives or intentions of the terrorist might be, his actions
are vitiated by the methods he employs in fighting his cause. Terrorism is,
therefore, a veritable reflection of the saying that the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.
The maintenance of
international peace and security is a categorical imperative of the
contemporary world. In fact, non-use or threat of use of force is today a norm
of jus cogens, that is to say, a
peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is
permitted and which can be modified only by a norm of similar character.[1] When this is coupled to the rule of pacta
sunt servanda,[2] that is to say, the requirement to faithfully observe treaty
obligations, it becomes self-evident that the international community had no choice but to put in place a series of
treaties aimed at containing the ogre of terrorism.[3]
The international
consensus against terrorism is motivated by the necessity apprehended by most
States to ensure stability and regularity in international intercourse. A
situation which encourages forceful change of government or succumbs to the
wiles of forces inimical to government by law is, quite simply, untenable in
today’s world. The end of the Cold War seems to have encouraged a high level of
agreement within the international community regarding the need to wage a
global war against terrorism. If during the Cold War it was easy to play one
power bloc against the other, that situation no longer exists, more so as the
widespread nature of terrorism has confirmed that no country is immune to the deleterious
effects of what has, to all intents and purposes, become an international
crime, if not indeed a crime against humanity.
The ubiquity of
terrorist acts coupled with heightened feelings of self-doubt and insecurity
across the world, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center twin
towers in New York on September 11, 2001 has forged the anti-terrorism
consciousness prevalent among the ordinary people, tourists, traders, students,
not to talk of diplomats, government officials and high net worth individuals
that seem, more often than not, to be the intended targets of the nefarious
actions of terrorist groups. Indeed, the higher the profile of victims of
terrorist attacks, the greater the propaganda value of such terrorist action.
To recall the observation of Margaret Thatcher, terrorists thrive in the oxygen
of publicity and deprivation of publicity would go a long way in incapacitating
them.
The global spread of acts of terrorism, from
Dar es Salaam to Nairobi, Bali, Mogadishu, Moscow, London and Kandahar has
stirred the human conscience everywhere so much so, that the war against
terrorism has now become a universal one and not the concern of any one nation
or people. The hydra-headed nature of terrorism has compelled the international
community to join hands in arresting the clear and present danger to global
peace and social well-being. It is a matter beyond the capability of any one
State or group of States, however powerful. Individual state anti-terrorist
moves can only result in clipping the local tentacles of what is, to all
intents and purposes, a global octopus. The increasing collaboration among law
enforcement agencies and security outfits of the States of the world is,
therefore, indicative of the growing success of the international community in
the effort to arrest this most grievous threat of our time. Notwithstanding, it
is apposite to interrogate and evaluate what is being done at the local level
to put a halt to the ferocity of terrorist actions through the instrumentality
of law in order to have a complete picture of the war against terrorism.
It is instructive that
in Nigeria, after a long period of incapacitation and self-doubt, efforts are
now being exerted to streamline intelligence-gathering, sever the nexus between
crimes like robbery and drug trafficking and terrorism and step up
counter-terrorism action by the country’s security agencies and bring
terrorists to justice by closing whatever lacunae exist in the law pertaining
to terrorism. However, it seems apposite to now examine the spectre of
terrorism as manifested by the Boko Haram.
The Boko Haram
Phenomenon[4]
The Jammatul Ahlis Sunnah lid Daawa wal Jihad,
otherwise known as Boko Haram emerged on the Nigerian landscape in 2002 when a
group of young Islamic fundamentalists denounced the city of Maiduguri in
North-east Nigeria as irredeemably corrupt and then moved to Kanama, a village
in the neighbouring Yobe state, not too far from Niger, where they set up a
separatist community based on rigid Islamic principles. From there, they
started canvassing “true” Islamic law, anti-establishment ideologies, under its
leader, Mohammed Ali who was later killed in a shootout with the military in
December, 2003.
They soon regrouped
under a new leader, Mohammed Yusuf who recruited more members, largely from
scions of the Northern elite and jobless youths and refugees from Chad. They
returned to Maiduguri and started building new structures, offering food,
medicine and other benefits to the poor just like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
and other parts of the Middle East. The group had, more or less, become a state
within a state with its own mosques, cabinet, religious police and farms. They
now became known as “the Nigerian Taliban” and reportedly received financial
support from Salafist elements
in Saudi Arabia as well as wealthy northern Nigerians. In addition, some of
their members were known to have had military training in Al Qaeda training
camps in Mauritania, Algeria, Mali and Somalia.[5]
From its base in
Maiduguri, the Boko Haram quickly spread its tentacles to Bauchi, Niger and
other parts of Northern Nigeria and succeeded in infiltrating the ranks of the
Borno State Government, having been able to nominate of its commissioners.
Besides, it maintained harsh discipline among its members, frequently rounding
up and publicly beheading errant ones and executing daring bank robberies and
assault on police stations. All this led to a confrontation with the security
forces which resulted in the arrest of Yusuf in July, 2009 and his brutal
execution by the Police thereafter which effectively set the Boko Haram on an
all-out revenge mission against the Nigerian State.
In June, 2011, the Boko
Haram successfully launched a suicide attack against the national Police
Headquarters in Abuja. Soon after, in August, 2011, another suicide bomber
drove into the UN compound in Abuja, killing 23 persons and wounding many more.
The Christmas Day bombing of a church in Suleija, near Abuja heralded new
period of fear, insecurity and uncertainty across the country. Since then,
almost on a weekly basis, churches, schools, bars and hotels in various parts
of Northern Nigeria have been subjected to suicide bombings, armed attacks and
all manner of mayhem, so much so that the Boko Haram scourge has now assumed
the proportions of a low-intensity armed insurrection, with all the
consequences arising therefrom.
Although the security
forces have scored some successes in the bid to put a lid on the excesses of
the Boko Haram, the day for their being “on top of the situation” still lies
further afield. Now, the terrorist group has caught the attention of the
international community as the US government
only a couple of weeks ago, stopped short of declaring the Boko Haram a
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) while the Nigerian government itself has
been seeking help from whoever and wherever it can get it. Both ECOWAS, the
regional economic community and the African Union (AU), not to forget the UN
too, have all been expressing concern on the deteriorating security situation
in Africa’s most populous nation. In short, The Boko Haram is, today, a
festering sore which is threatening the very survival of Nigeria.
While there is a raging
debate within the country on how to cage the Boko Haram, the legal response to
the threat posed by the organization warrants re-assessment. There are
suggestions at high levels of government, for the creation of special courts
for terrorism, declaration of a nation-wide state of war against the Boko Haram
and numerous other novel ideas. However, it seems apposite to examine the
extant effort to harness the law in the task of confronting the threat of
terrorism as represented by the Boko Haram.
An Overview of the
Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011
Like other members of
the international community, Nigeria has felt obliged to put in place laws that
would assist in curtailing the incidence of terrorism. One of such is the
Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011. It should be stated immediately that one of
the motivations for the enactment of the statute was the necessity to implement
Nigeria’s treaty obligations on terrorism and matters related thereto. The
relevant counter-terrorism Conventions include the following:
(a)
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic
Agents, 1973;
(b) International Convention against the Taking
of Hostages, 1979 ;
(c)
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, 1997;
(d)
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999;
(e)
Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, 1970;
(f)
Convention for the Suppression the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970;
(g)
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil
Aviation, 1971;
(h) Protocol
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving
International Civil Aviation, 1988;
(i) Convention on the Making of Plastic
Explosives for the Purpose of Identification, 1991;
(j) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988;
(k) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988;
(l) Convention on the Physical Protection of
Nuclear Material, 1980.
Furthermore, the Act seeks to provide for measures for the prevention,
prohibition and combating of acts of terrorism, the financing of terrorism in
Nigeria and prescribes penalties for violating any of its provisions.
Accordingly, the Act contains 41 sections, arranged into Eight Parts with a
Schedule, listing relevant statutes. Part I defines acts of terrorism and
related offences while Part II contains provisions relating to terrorist funds
and property. Part III is on mutual assistance and extradition and Part IV is
on information sharing on criminal matters. Parts V and VI set out
investigative and prosecution processes, respectively while Part VII deals with
charities and the last Part contains miscellaneous provisions.
Some
Critical Aspects of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act
·
Definition of Terrorism
In defining terrorism, the Act attempts to create a dragnet encompassing
sundry acts that are captured. Accordingly, an “act of terrorism” means “an act
which is deliberately done with malice, aforethought and which may seriously
harm or damage a country or an international organization” [or] “is intended or
can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to unduly compel a
government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing
any act, seriously intimidate a population, seriously destabilize or destroy
the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a
country or an international organization, or otherwise influence such
government or international organization by intimidation or coercion…”[6]
More pointedly, an act of
terrorism “involves or causes…an attack upon a person’s life which may cause
serious bodily harm or death; kidnapping of a person; destruction to a
Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility,
including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental
shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or
result in major economic loss; the seizure of an aircraft, ship or other means
of public or goods transport and diversion or the use of such means of
transportation…the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or
use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as
well as research into, and development of biological and chemical weapons
without lawful authority; the release of dangerous substance[s] or causing of fire, explosions or floods the
effect of which is to endanger human life; interference with or distribution of
the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the
effect of which is to endanger human life…”[7] It is instructive that an act or
omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within the scope of
counter-terrorism Protocols or Conventions duly ratified by Nigeria also comes
under the ambit of the Act.
Interestingly, disruption of a service when done in the course of a
protest does not constitute a terrorist act, provided such an act does not
embody any terrorist intention.[8] Whereas associating with others in an organization which engages in
participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism, promoting, encouraging
or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism or setting up or pursuing
acts of terrorism makes a person liable under the Act, provided such an
organization has been duly declared a proscribed organization.[9] However, for the avoidance of doubt, political parties are not to be
regarded as proscribed organizations and no-one is to be treated as having
committed terrorist acts merely because of his political beliefs.[10] A further safeguard of civil liberties is contained in the provision
exculpating any persons for acts committed by such an organization antedating
his membership or non-participation in the acts of the organization subsequent
to its declaration as a proscribed organization.[11]
Furthermore, any person who arranges, manages or assists in arranging or
participates in a meeting or an activity which he knows is connected with an
act of terrorism; or provides logistics, equipment or facilities for a meeting
or an activity which he knows is connected with an act of terrorism; or attends
a meeting which he knows is to support a proscribed organization or to further
the objectives of a proscribed organization is liable under the Act.[12] Similarly, any person who knowingly, in any manner, solicits or renders
support for an act of terrorism or a proscribed organization or an
internationally suspected terrorist group is deemed to have committed an
offence under the Act.[13] Support here includes incitement
to commit a terrorist act; offer of material assistance, weapons, including
biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, explosives, training, transportation,
false documentation or identification; offer or provision of moral assistance, including
invitation to adhere to a proscribed organization; and the provision of, or
making available, such financial or other related services as may be prescribed
in the Act.[14]
Also, harbouring or concealment of
persons known to have committed or convicted of an act of terrorism or against
whom has been issued a warrant of arrest or imprisonment for such an act by any
person, whether or not in the armed forces constitutes an offence punishable
under the Act.[15]
Another offence under the Act is provision knowingly of training or
instruction in the making or use of any explosive or other lethal device or in
carrying out a terrorist act to a member of a terrorist group or a person
engaging in the commission of a terrorist act.[16] Besides, failure by a person to disclose to a law enforcement officer
any information which he knows or believes to be of material assistance in
preventing the commission by another person or an organization of an act of
terrorism or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of such
person for an offence under the Act renders such person liable.[17] However, a person charged for the offence shall not be liable if he can
prove that he has reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure.[18] A notable case in point is the lawyer-client privilege.[19]
Obstruction of terrorism investigations through disclosure to another
anything that is likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation or interference
with material which is likely to be relevant to a terrorist investigation is an
offence under the Act.[20] However, it shall be a defence for anyone charged for this offence to
prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the
disclosure was likely to affect a terrorist investigation; or had a reasonable
excuse for the disclosure or interference.[21]
In view of the international dimensions of terrorism, it is quite apt
that the Act made ample provision for declaring a person a suspected
international terrorist by the President on the recommendation of either the
National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police, if he reasonably
suspects that the person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation
or instigation of acts of international terrorism or is a member of, or belongs
to an international terrorist group or recognized as such in conformity with
provisions of the Act or he has a link with an international terrorist group
and he believes that the person is a risk to national security.[22] It should also be emphasized that a group may be declared an
international terrorist group if the group is subject to the control or
influence of persons outside Nigeria and the group is reasonably suspected to
have been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
international terrorism or it is listed among groups or entities involved in
terrorist acts in any resolution of the UN Security Council or any instrument
of the African Union and ECOWAS or considered as such by the competent
authority of a foreign State.[23]
In a further bid to squelch
terrorism, the Act has provided that any person who, directly or indirectly,
provides or collects funds with the intention or knowledge that they will be
used, in full or in part, in order to commit an offence in breach of an
enactment specified in the Schedule to the Act; or do any other act intended to
cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian or any other person not
taking active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when
the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a group of
people or to compel a government or an international organization to do or
abstain from doing any act is deemed to have committed an offence.[24]
Finally, hostage-taking is an offence under the Act. Thus, any person who
knowingly seizes, detains or attempts to seize or detain; or threatens to kill,
injure or detain another person in order to compel a third party to do, abstain
from doing any act or gives an explicit or implicit condition for the release
of the hostage, commits an offence and is liable under the Act.[25]
·
General Penalties for Acts of
Terrorism under the Act
On account of the seriousness of the crime of terrorism, severe penalties
have been prescribed for different offences under the Act. The sanctions range
from imprisonment between 5 and 20 years
and death penalty where terrorist acts result in loss of life. For example, a
person who belongs to a proscribed
organization or renders support for an act of terrorism or to a proscribed
organization shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a maximum term
of 20 years[26] while participating in a meeting of a proscribed organization or
provides or collects funds to be used for terrorist activities or knowingly
seizes or detains another or threatens to kill another, all carry a penalty of
imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years[27] while anyone who contravenes any regulation made pursuant to freezing of
his funds, prevention of his entry into or transit in Nigeria or prohibition of
the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms, weapons, ammunition,
military vehicles, etc. is liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of 5
years.[28] However, as earlier stated, the death penalty is envisaged for terrorist
acts leading to the death of the victim(s).[29]
It is noteworthy that where a person declared as a suspected
international terrorist is a Nigerian citizen other than by birth, such a
person may be deprived of his Nigerian citizenship.[30]
·
Penalties Relating to Terrorist Funds
and Property
The Act contains provisions enabling both the National Security Adviser
and the Inspector General of Police with the approval of the President to seize
any cash where he has reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash is intended
to be used for the purpose of terrorism or belongs to, or is held in trust for
a proscribed organization or represents property obtained through acts of
terrorism.[31] If the cash in question is discovered during a search or arrest,
safeguards have been provided in furtherance of due process by way of order of
a judge in chambers pursuant thereto.[32] Furthermore, anyone who knowingly
solicits, receives, provides or possesses monetary or other property or enters
into or becomes involved in an arrangement as a result of which money or other
property is made available, or is to be made available, for the purpose of
terrorism or for a proscribed organization is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for up to 10 years imprisonment.[33]
Financial institutions are obliged to notify the Financial Intelligence
Unit within 72 hours of any suspicious transactions relating to terrorism with
the confidentiality of such report strictly maintained at the pain of a minimum
fine of N5m or imprisonment for 5 years.[34] Besides, any inadvertent breach of this obligation warrants
administrative sanction while continuing breach carries a fine of N5m or 5
years imprisonment for the principal officers of the institution or the
defaulting officer.[35]
Dealing in terrorist property by way of concealment, removal from
jurisdiction or transfer to another person is punishable with up to 10 years
imprisonment[36] while all monies accruing from the property and the property itself may
be subject to attachment.[37] Indeed the property may fall into receivership within the pendency of an
investigation.[38]
Communication service providers,
operators of conveyance such as aircraft, trains, vehicles or vessels are
obliged to carry out all directions necessary and proper for the purposes of the prevention or
detection of offences or prosecution of terrorists or be liable to a fine of up to N1m or 5 years imprisonment.[39]
Enforcement of the Act
On account of the omnibus nature of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, its
efficacy becomes a matter of paramount importance if its objectives are to be
fully realized. Trials of a number of cases involving terrorism have not
disclosed full regard for procedural safeguards such as presumption of
innocence, right to counsel, fair hearing, etc which are the hallmarks of
modern criminal jurisprudence. There is considerable misgiving in certain
quarters regarding treatment meted out to detainees accused of terrorist acts,
some of whom have since died in incarceration. Admittedly, the situation of
awaiting trial detainees in Nigeria is generally less than salubrious; yet,
things need not deteriorate to the extent that it would seem the country has
abandoned its adversarial prosecution for the inquisitorial or else, the state
itself might stand accused of terrorist tactics!
What is most needed in the counter-terrorism crusade is a much improved
intelligence gathering capability by the various security outfits in order to
outsmart and overwhelm those forces that do not wish the country well. This
calls for intensified training, especially in terms of human intelligence,
forensic science, data storage and retrieval and general information
management. There is an urgent need to review the massive publicity that local
media give to spokespersons of terrorist groups under the guise of freedom of
information. A lot of work needs to be done to sensitize the media to the
security needs and interests of the nation. If a total blackout on terrorist
escapades is not feasible, our editors need to exercise greater discretion
regarding the undue publicity granted these modern-day enemies of humanity.
In the final analysis, the law cannot be a cure-all for all acts of
malfeasance. True, humankind is yet to invent a better or more optimal
instrument of social control but then, the limits of law must be fully grasped.
Law without effective enforcement agencies amount very much to an oxymoron. A
lot of resources need to be channeled to the security agencies in the form of
helicopters, cruisers, hi-tech security cameras set up at strategic locations,
eavesdropping equipment, close circuit TV in public buildings, etc. It is only
after requisite materials are in place that the law can have reasonable
prospects of achieving its goal of enhancing human interaction in an atmosphere
of social equilibrium, peace and national security.
Conclusion
The enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 is a veritable
watershed in law-making in this country. Nigeria has not had such a
comprehensive law aimed at clipping the wings of one of the gravest threats to
national survival. Just as the customs house is yet to be built that can
prevent the export of good examples, occurrences in far-flung corners of the
Earth sooner than later develop their own momentum and become reproduced
elsewhere, with some mutation but, more often than not, engendering fatal
consequences.
Terrorism is one such reality of our time and Nigeria seems to be rising
up to the threat. The anti-terrorism legislation recently enacted is very much
a step in the right direction. Despite its somewhat convoluted drafting, it
stands a good chance of bringing terrorists to heel and ensure that the people
live in peace and freedom, without let or hindrance.
Nevertheless, a lot still needs to be done. It seems necessary to
reconsider the sanctions prescribed for terrorist activities in the country
such as those being carried out by the Boko Haram. While there is considerable
revulsion in the country and elsewhere against the death penalty in view of its
harshness, inhumanity and failure as a deterrence, it must be admitted that
there is also a body of opinion in Nigeria and elsewhere in favour of the view
that a drastic disease warrants a drastic remedy. The argument is that since
Boko Haram operatives kill without batting an eye-lid, they are themselves
undeserving of mercy which they always refuse to show their fellow human beings
during their despicable and inhuman actions. Accordingly, the death penalty
prescribed for terrorist activities which entail loss of life would seem quite
understandable.
The idea of creating special courts to try terrorist suspects in order to
obviate the infelicities of Nigeria’s notoriously slow grinding judicial
process-a sort of military tribunals dressed in civilian garb-might not go down
well with many on account of the inevitable curtailing of civil liberties by
the fast-track judicial process envisaged in these new-fangled special courts.
However, perhaps, critics might just have to understand the predicament of a
country caught in a dilemma between necessity and fidelity to fair hearing and
other accustomed procedural safeguards.
*
* Paper delivered at the Oxford Round Table, holden at Harris Manchester College, the University of Oxford, England, July 22-26, 2012.
* Paper delivered at the Oxford Round Table, holden at Harris Manchester College, the University of Oxford, England, July 22-26, 2012.
**
** Professor of International Law and Chair, Office o International Relations, Partnerships and Prospects, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
** Professor of International Law and Chair, Office o International Relations, Partnerships and Prospects, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
[3]
[3] E.g., the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, 1997 and the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999.
[3] E.g., the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, 1997 and the Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999.
