A Review – Independent Newspaper Nigeria

All over the world, the gov­ernment of every nation or country is responsible for the formulation and imple­mentation of policies in the day-to-day running of the affairs of the State. To this end, some of these policies do not go down well with the people or some­times cause inconveniences or discom­fort to the populace. As a result of this, citizens and civil societies may frown at certain policies, and to bring about the desired change or development in the society. They may show their displeasure in a lot of ways, which in­cludes: sponsoring political adverts or statements, writing letters of protest to the government, addressing people at public gathering about the pros and cons of government policies and per­formance and staging of civil protests or civil demonstrations.

The question to now ask is: wheth­er it is legal or wrong for citizens to protest against the government. It is submitted, humbly, that the answer is in the affirmative. The reason for this is that the 1999 Constitution of the Feder­al Republic of Nigeria which is the fons et origo and the father of all laws and bye-laws in Nigeria in section 40 guar­antees freedom of association while the same constitution guarantees freedom of expression in Section 39.

The simple submission being made here is that every Nigerian has the freedom to right of expression which, simply put, includes: speaking against bad policies of government, whether in public or in private, and the quali­fications or exemptions given to these rights do not include any reasonable complaint against bad governance. See Section 45 of the 1999 constitution.

A close look at Section 45 of the Constitution is apposite, and a com­bined effect of Sections 39 and 40 thereof would reveal that the rights guaranteed are a kind of Siamese Twins in some instances, in the sense that impartation of ideas, information or opinions are better done through association or assemblage of people. Having said that, it is submitted that the planned protest by Nigerian citi­zens tagged “#Endbadgovernance” is not only justified but necessary to keep the government in check. The reason for this is that things have gone completely awry so much so that life has become unbearable for ordinary citizens as government has removed subsidies on electricity, oil and gas and these have effected all the critical sectors of the economy to the extent that many multinational and local companies have folded up and gone out of business, while some left Nigeria completely with the attendant consequence of increasing the unem­ployment rate in the country.

Without mincing words, these anomalies have caused serious pains and sufferings to the people to the ex­tent that no one, except the politicians, is smiling in the country today. Prices of goods and services have gone high­er in several percentage of hundreds; food stock are no longer affordable, people live in darkness because they can no longer bear the cut-throat cost of electricity tariff. The price of petro­leum product has gone high, ditto for cooking gas, transportation has be­come unbearable, and only a few can afford to use their private vehicles. All these put together constitute nothing than a testimonial to bad governance. Therefore, will it be justified or reason­able for the citizens to keep quiet in the face of all these unprecedented aberra­tions? It is submitted that the answer is in the negative. As a result of this ugly state of affairs, the citizens have now perfected plans to stage a protest against the government bad policies.

Arising from the foregoing is the fact that the ills of government which have resulted in sufferings and un­told hardships on the people need to be checked, hence the planned pro­test. Funnily enough, the government which caused the these ugly situations to arise is afraid and worried and has engaged all sort of political chicaner­ies including but not limited to using ploys to dissuade them from staging the protest, trying to educate or en­lighten them that the protest may be hijacked by hoodlums or that it may have negative consequences on the people. The government has also re­sorted to making unrealistic promises of better days to Nigerians when, in actual fact, the factors to make such promises realistic are not put in place. In another breath, the government has sounded a note of warning or subtle threat to the would-be protesters that unless this protest is avoided or can­celled, government will descend on any erring person and deal with them according to the law.

It is submitted that this threat is an unjustifiable one given the fact that the law recognized the citizens’ right to protest. As a matter of fact, the law imposes an obligation on the police and governors to protect the lives and property of the people. Not only that but also, during civil protest like the one being planned by the citizens, the police is obligated and under compul­sion to provide tight security to the protesters. The Court of Appeal has had the rare privilege or occasion to give judicial imprimatur to this salient principle of law granting inalienable right to the citizens to protest, as in this instant case, that is the planned protest by the citizens; “#Endbadgov­ernment”. See Inspector General of Po­lice V ANPP & ORS (2000) 12 WRN 65, where the Court of Appeal recognized the right of Nigerian citizens to assem­ble freely and protest without any inhibition whatsoever. In particular, the court, Per. Adekeye JCA, declared thus: “The Public Order Act should be promulgated to complement Sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution of the fed­eral Republic of Nigeria 1999, in con­text and not to stifle or cripple it”. The court went further to declare that: “A rally of placard-carrying -demonstra­tion has become a form of expression of views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sov­ereign state”. “It is a trend recognized and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilized countries. It will not only be primitive, but also retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally. We must borrow a leaf from those who have trekked the rugged path of democracy and are now reaping the dividends of their experiences”.

Taking a cue from the above, it is not in doubt that the only role of the po­lice in a protest of this nature is to pro­vide adequate security and protect the people especially the protesters. There­fore, the call or threat by the police to descend on protesters is uncalled for and can only be counter-productive. What is more? It needs be pointed out that the contention of the police in the case of IGP V ANPP Supra, was that there was need for police permit to be obtained under Section 1 of the Public Order Act Cap P42 LFN 2004, before the ANPP can hold a political rally and on that ground, the respondent (ANPP) had sought for police permit to hold its rally across the country in protest against the rigging of the 2003 general election but the police refused to issue the permit so sought by the ANPP and on that basis, the police disrupted the rally organized by the respondent in Kano on the 22nd of September 2003. Expectedly, the respondent (ANPP) filed a suit at the Federal High Court to challenge the unconstitutionality of the police power. In dismissing the contention of the police that protest­ers must obtain police permit before staging protests, the learned trial Judge, Hon. Justice Chinyere posited as follows:

“The gist of the provision of Sec­tion 1 of the Act, is that the governor of each state is empowered to direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings, and processions on public roads, or places of public resort in the state and prescribe the routes by which and times at which the procession may pass. Persons desirous of con­vening or collecting any assembly or meeting or of forming a procession in any pubic resort must apply and ob­tain the license of the governor. The governor can delegate his powers to the Commissioner of Police of the state or to other police officers. Per­sons aggrieved by the decisions of the Commissioner of Police may appeal to the governor and the decision of the governor shall be final and no further appeal shall lie therefrom.”

The learned trial judge then went further to declare thus: “In my view, the provision in Section 40 of the Con­stitution is clear, direct and unambig­uous. It is formulated and designed to confer on every person the rights to assemble freely and associate with other persons. I am therefore, persuad­ed by the argument of Mr. Falana that by combined effect of Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 constitution as well as Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the right to assemble freely cannot be violated without violating the fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and asso­ciation. I agree with Mr. Falana that vi­olation can only be done by the proce­dure permitted by law, under Section 45 of the Constitution, in which case, there must be a State of Emergency properly declared before these rights can be violated”.

*To be continued

*Akingbolu, a lawyer, human rights ac­tivist and public affairs