Perhaps by sheer coincidence, he did so as a father even on a day (Fathers Day) many would have preferred to talk about the good side of fathers.
But like a father truly conscious of his responsibilities towards the safety of his children, his major concern was to remind other fathers, this time the Nigerian state governors, of the need to act and protect the rights of the people from the indiscretion of their aggressive and murderous kith and kin.
In an obvious diplomatic way, he made it clear that he was not pleased with the manner state executives tactically shied away from performing their constitutional assignment, particularly in giving their consent to the execution of death row prisoners, convicted for murder by courts of competent jurisdiction.
According to him, not giving their approval was wrong because it would give the impression that they place more value on political expedience than the protection of human rights deliberately abused and violated by others.
But for advocates of absolute freedom, the President’s admonition was a freeway approval for an archaic order that seeks to give an unrestrained rein to the state governors to violate peoples right to life with impunity.
Indeed, the President was in their opinion very wrong in asking state governors to start approving death sentences in their various states as no crime deserves the death penalty, more or less. As if they were in a hurry to be heard, none of them gave a thought to the feelings of those whose lives were ended brutally by the action of the affected death row inmates.
Therefore, it was not a surprise that they cried their voice hoarse when news filtered in that Daniel Nsofor, Osarenmwenda Aigbokhan, Chima Ejiofor and Richard Igagu, all convicted murderers long approved for execution by Edo State government, were quietly executed in a prison facility in Benin City on Monday, June 24, 2013.
For them, the execution was not only inhuman, it was also an abuse of legalities as a suit instituted by the convicts (probably unaware that it had been thrown out) was still before a court. Not done, they made the point that the action was against the spirit of a United Nations non-binding declaration, to which Nigeria is a signatory, that places a moratorium on execution.
The uproar against the execution was championed by the Amnesty International, ably supported by other groups, including the Legal Defence and Assistance Project, LEDAP, African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, ANEEJ, Gani Fawehinmi Movement for Good Governance, GFMGG and Conference of Non-Governmental Organisations, CONGOs.
But good as their position appear, they appeared to have deliberately overlooked certain universal facts that are at variance with their position. One of them is that like every other rights, a person’s right to life stops where it interferes with another person’s right.
All over the world, the right to life is the most sacred right any man can wish for. It is so important that it is not only protected by the state using the constitution as guide, its protection is such that where it is violated, the state must ensure that anyone found guilty of violating it is statutorily and appropriately sanctioned. That is why it is regarded as inalienable.
In the course of finding appropriate sanctions for curtailing violations, individual countries, including Nigeria and the United States, evolved certain measures, including execution. For instance, in accordance with the Nigerian statutes, every criminal found guilty and condemned to death as prescribed by the law in cases involving treason, murder, armed robbery, etc, is certain to pay the full penalty. However, the terms of execution are as spelt out statutorily and in clear terms.
One of them is that it will only be carried out having duly been approved by state executives. Even at that, it is the responsibility of the Nigerian Prisons to carry out the execution order having duly ensured that those so convicted are allowed the right of appeal up to the Supreme Court. Where the convict cannot afford legal representation, it is incumbent on the state to provide him with one. This process was duly followed in the case popularly referred to as the Edo Four. This is with a view to avoiding miscarriage of justice.
It is important to note here that the current governor gave approval for the execution of Daniel Nsofor and Osarenmwenda Aigbokhan almost 12 calendar months before the President’s admonition. The assent for the execution of Chima Ejiofor and Richard Igagu, was given over a decade ago by Chief Lucky Nosakhare Igbinedion. Differently, the affected convicts have taken their cases through the prescribed legal processes, including appeals up to the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, in giving its judgement on one of the final appeals, the Supreme Court described one of the accused as belonging to hell.
However, before carrying the Edo Four execution order, the prison authorities showed sufficient proof that it is very familiar with these facts. Little wonder that in waiting this far to implement the execution order, it allowed the convicts to even approach the Federal High Court in Benin City, on the grounds that their continuous stay in death row for well over one decade was traumatic, inhuman and cruel.
HOWEVER, they had to effect the execution when the court turned down their plea, effectively putting to rest the argument in some quarters that the case was pending.
Secondly, in turning them down, the point was made that rather than sentiments, the issue at stake is strictly point of law. Therefore, while pointing out that the rights of the convicts were violated, those crying foul ought also to have considered the position of law on redressing the rights of those brutally cut, as it is in the case under review. To have ignored that position is, to me, very mischievous.
For purposes of clarity, the position of the Nigerian Constitution on premeditated murder law is unambiguous. Section 33 (1) expressly states that every person has a right to life, adding that the right must not be violated because it is protected by the law. Arguably convinced that such right is not absolute, the same section added a caveat that a man “will forfeit his right to life in line with the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.”
For instance, section 2 (1) goes further to explain the circumstances under which a man’s right to life cannot be said to have been violated. It states inter alia that: “A person shall not be regarded as been deprived of his right if he dies as a result of the use, to such an extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary…,” to among others, “…defend any person from unlawful violence or for the defense of property.”
Strictly speaking therefore, the execution as performed in Edo State is a constitutional matter that gives no room for sentiments. As it is in the United States (where Kimberly McCarthy was executed on Wednesday, June 26, for killing Dorothy Booth), so it is in Nigeria and some other member states of the United Nations, the global umbrella body that endorsed the non-binding moratorium that seeks to put a halt on the execution of death row inmates.
Neither the Amnesty International nor its co- travellers need rocket scientists to remind them that the protection of the sanctity of human life is a sacrosanct responsibility of every government. Whether legal or moral, there are set rules guiding the manner of carrying out such a responsibility. To the extent it waited for all possible room for appeal has been covered, the state government or prison authorities cannot be said to have pushed aside a consideration for the sanctity of the life and feelings of the convicts. By the way, whose rights matter more here?
Is it the rights of convicted violators or those of the victims? Amnesty and others questioning the execution would do well in providing an answer to this question before attempting to reinvent the wheel. They must answer this question candidly in order not to risk being seen by the people as merely playing to the gallery in the name of satisfying their sponsors that they are doing their jobs. Unless their mission is that they want the country to subsume its statutes under those of the United Nations.
For me, the implementation of set rules meant to protect the less powerful as statutorily prescribed, as is the case with the execution in Edo State, is right and proper. Until it is vacated and or overturned statutorily, all clamour for its eradication is an unreasonably puerile sentiment.
Source: Vanguard
No comments:
Post a Comment