The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
EXAMINATION OF STATE REPORTS
13th Session April 1993: Nigeria - Togo

The editors wish to thank the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida for financial support of the publications.

PREFACE

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights was established in November 1987 to promote human and people's rights and to ensure their protection in Africa. One of the most important tools at the disposal of the Commission in the endeavour to reach these objectives is the state reporting procedure.

State reports submitted according to Article 62 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights are examined at public sessions of the Commission. However, the effects of the examinations are limited if records of the discussions are not available to a wider audience.

It was therefore gratifying that the Commission at its 16th Session in October 1994 was able to authorize the Danish Centre for Human Rights to publish, in the name of the Commission, the transcripts of the examinations of state reports which had taken place so far. Although the examination procedure is still evolving, the transcripts demonstrate the will of the Commission to reach its objectives and it is a vital step towards greater effectiveness in the protection of human rights in Africa.

The progress of human rights is a great collective project, and the Danish Centre for Human Rights has shown its dedication to this project. By undertaking this substantial and important piece of work, the Danish Centre for Human Rights has set an example to the advancement of human rights in Africa which we hope will be followed by others. I would like to take this opportunity to express the deep gratitude of the Commission to the Danish Centre for Human Rights for its dedication in helping the Commission fulfill its mandate, striving towards a better life for all on the African continent.

Banjul, August 1995
Mr. Isaac Nguema
Chairman of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights

INTRODUCTION

Under Article 62 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the states parties must submit a report every two years on their domestic human rights situtation. After a report has been submitted, states are invited to send representatives to a session of the African Commission to present the report in person. These reports are to include national constitutions and other legislation affecting human rights, such as the criminal code, and to discuss the status of the African Charter in domestic law. They furnish a unique source of information on law and human rights in Africa.

The history of this procedure is quite brief. The African Commission was established in 1987 and the first reports were examined in 1991. To date, only 15 states have submitted their initial reports, two states their second reports, and out of these, 14 have been examined. There have been long delays before state representatives appear before the Commission, and no official record of these examinations has yet been published.

In the interest of disseminating information on the work of the African Commission and the situation of human rights in Africa, the Danish Centre for Human Rights proposed to publish the state reports as well as transcripts of the examinations before the Commission. Authorization for this was given by the African Commission at its 16th session in October 1994, and the present volumes are the fruit of this undertaking.

The first volume contains the reports and discussions of Libya, Rwanda and Tunisia which were examined at the 9th Session in March 1991. No state reports were presented at the 10th Session, thus Volume II. covers Egypt and Tanzania, discussed at the 11th Session in March 1992. Volume III. contains The Gambia, Senegal and Zimbabwe, from the 12th Session in October 1992, and Volume IV. Nigeria and Togo examined at the 13th Session in April 1993. Finaly Volume V. covers the report of Ghana, discussed at the 14th Session in December 1993. 1The reports of Benin and Cape Verde as well as the second reports of The Gambia, all examined at the 16th Session are not included. Where it has been possible, the discussions on procedural questions have been put in separate chapters. However, at the 14th Session the general remarks were integrated in the discussion of Ghana.

The state reports vary widely in their quality and content, and the character of the discussions likewise. The Commission began its first examinations with no clear procedure. Throughout the past several years, a modus operandi has evolved, but each examination has a distinct character, influenced by the framework set out by the report, the background and preparation of the state representatives, and the attitude of the Commissioners. A careful reader will find plenty of interest both in the text and between the lines.

Examinations begin with the state representative delivering an overview of the report. One Commissioner, the Special Rapporteur, is assigned to study the report in depth and prepare questions which are then put to the representative to open the discussion. After the questions of the Special Rapporteur, the floor is open to all Commissioners to ask questions. The state representative answers as many of these as possible, whereafter the Special Rapporteur is supposed to summarize and conclude.

The examinations have often been fora for wide-reaching discussions that give valuable indications of how the Commission interprets certain provisions of the African Charter. Subjects such as peoples' rights, traditional cultural practices, and the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights have been taken up.

The publication of these transcripts would not have been possible without the combined efforts of many people. The Danish Centre for Human Rights must recognize the work of Astrid Danielsen, who conceived this project and administered it throughout, and Julia Harrington, who compiled the index and summaries.

The Danish Centre would like to thank the Commissioners of the African Commission for having entrusted this important project to the Centre.

Copenhagen, August 1995
Mr. Morten Kjaerum
Director of the Danish Centre for Human Rights

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Chairman: In the absence of Chairman Ibrahim A. BADAWI El-Sheikh,

Vice-Chairman Sourahata B.S. JANNEH chaired the meeting.

JANNEH:

Now we should according to the next item on the agenda be considering Periodic Reports. Specifically, the Report of Nigeria, Togo, Cape Verde and Benin. Unfortunately, although we have, I understand, I have not met her, a representative of the Nigeria Government sent to deal with the Nigeria Periodic Report, it would appear she will not be ready until the 1st of this month. And I dare say members to be quite prepared and give that concession, especially, in the light of the fact that Nigeria is such a large nation that often would like that country to take interest especially in an important field as human and people's rights.

Now, so far as Togo is concerned, that has been assigned to Commissioner Ben Salem, who hopefully, will be ready to deal with this problem tomorrow. Benin was allocated, I believe, to Commissioner Nguema, and I would like to hear from Commissioner Nguema as to when he is ready to deal with this matter or whether he has word from any representative of the Beninois Government.

NGEUMA:

Monsieur le président, je vous remercie. J'ai comme l'impression que vous retournez la question à l'envers, en ce qui me concerne c'est pas moi qui doit être prêt. C'est le Bénin qui doit être prêt. S'il est dans la salle, il faut qu'il se manifeste ou tout au moins son représentant. En ce qui me concerne, je suis venu à Banjul pour les travaux de la Commission, donc je suis là pour exécuter tout ce qui m'a été demandé. Cela dit, je voudrais dire, Monsieur le Président, que s'agissant de ces pays qui n'envoient pas des représentants pour défendre leur rapport, notre indulgence devrait peut-être être revue.

S'agissant par exemple du cas du Nigéria, je rappelle que nous avons organisé une session spéciale à Lagos sachant que le Nigéria justement est un pays très vaste, qu'il est difficile de bouger. C'est nous qui nous nous sommes déplacés pour aller à Lagos pour qu'on ait toutes les facilités possibles de la part des fonctionnaires de Lagos. Nous sommes revenus bredouilles. Je crois que nous avons eu entre temps une autre session, le représentant du Nigéria n'était pas là et, entre autres informations, j'ai cru comprendre que le dossier, le rapport qui nous est présenté aujourd'hui c'est le même que celui que nous avions eu il y a quelque temps, dossier qui avait été jugé par certains comme insuffisant. Des démarches précises et ponctuelles ont été faites naturellement par certains collègues de notre Commission pour que le rapport puisse être amélioré sinon augmenté. Il semble que tout cela n'a pas donné le résultat escompté, je suis tout à fait d'accord pour que nous puissions accordé un délai à celle qui est venu défendre le dossier du Nigéria. Mais je souhaiterais que, pour tous les autres pays qui n'ont pas envoyé de représentant pour la deuxième fois, que le problème soit transmis aux chefs d'état et de gouvernement dans notre rapport annuel. Qu'on les cite comme des gens qui ne veulent pas du tout s'acquitter de leurs obligations. Peut-être de cette manière-là les choses pourront un peu bouger parce que, à attendre indéfiniment, comme on le fait à Genève, c'est une possibilité mais je crois que, dans la mesure où en Afrique les choses sont difficiles à bouger, il est souhaitable que nous puissions, nous, laisser à la Conférence des Chefs d'Etat le soin d'apprécier ces attitudes.

Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président.

JANNEH:

Thank you, Commissioner Nguema. I agree generally with what you have to say, but first I am afraid that you dealt with the matter generally rather than dealing with the problem for which you are Rapporteur, that is Benin. It is true the representative of Benin is not here, but you should recommend what decisions this Commission should take. Now, I'll give you an example - in the case of Nigeria, Togo and Cape Verde, they were given time and when nothing was forthcoming, it was decided, and this is public knowledge, that at this session we would consider the reports in spite of their absence and that is exactly what we are going to do.

So it is for you to make a recommendation as to what we do with regard to Benin, because this is the fourth time, they have been called and they have been absent, so far as I understand. Perhaps you may wish to recommend that they be given this deadline. Now as to what to do you suggest that with regard to the Government that default after a warning, we should simply go and report them to the heads of state and Government. No problem, I have no problem with that, because that is the only thing we can do under the circumstances, but I am saying we cannot do that without at the same time reporting those who have not even sent reports.

That's the comment I want to make. With that I give Commissioner Ben Salem the floor.

BEN SALEM:

Merci Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout simplement faire la clarification que vous venez de faire, pour dire que d'abord, cette question de la présence des représentants des états pour la lecture et la discussion de leur rapport, a été plus ou moins résolue à la dernière session, puisqu'on avait décidé que si les représentants ne sont pas là et bien leur rapports seront examinés. Mais le Professeur Nguema pose également une question de principe parce que l'article 62, comme vous venez de le dire, demande à chaque état qui a ratifié la Charte de présenter son rapport périodique toutes les deux années. Or, il y a un problème de retard pour certains états et il y a un problème d'absence totale de rapport pour d'autres états et c'est cette question de principe qu'il faudra que notre Commission examine et solutionne si cela est possible cette fois-ci, Merci Monsieur le Président.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Kisanga.

KISANGA:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as you have rightly observed during the last meeting of the Commission, we did say that those governments that did not send their representatives here to consider their reports at that session should be notified by the Secretariat that their reports would be considered at this sitting of the Commission. Now, if they did not send a representative to come and present their reports, then we shall proceed, this Commission shall proceed to consider their reports. I think the next step to do now, the next thing to do now is to ask the Secretariat if states, if those states were duly informed, and if they were, what the reply has been. I would like to get that information first.

JANNEH:

That would be relevant when we come to discuss the individual reports. Then the Secretary will help us, because right now we are just discussing generally, but when the report comes to be presented then, naturally, the Rapporteur will have to ask that question to the Secretary and on the basis of that, a decision could be recommended. Yes, yes - I give the floor to the Rapporteur.

GABOU:

Merci Monsieur le Président. Mais ce n'est pas en tant que rapporteur que j'interviens, mais comme membre de la Commission à propos de la question qui est soulevée. Je crois, je voudrais seulement attirer l'attention de la Commission sur le fait que l'examen des rapports des états n'a pas d'autre intérêt que celui de les amener à mieux sauvegarder les droits et libertés de la Charte dans leur propre territoire. C'est une façon seulement de les aider de telle sorte que les décisions que nous devons prendre, quelles qu'elles soient, doivent tendre vers ce but et je crois que s'adresser à la conférence des chefs d'états comme solution à tout et notamment au manquement, ce n'est pas tout à fait la bonne solution. Les rapports que nous avons à mon avis, nous devons les examiner et donner aux états qui les ont établis, quand même, même s'ils n'ont pas envoyé de représentants pour les défendre, les conseils ou les suggestions qu'il faudrait pour les aider à mieux appliquer les règles de la Charte sur leur territoire. C'est tout ce que je voulais souligner, Monsieur le Président.

JANNEH:

Thank you, Commissioner Nguema. Commissioner Umozurike.

UMOZURIKE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to emphasise a point made by the last speaker. It had been debated before but I would like us to reopen the matter now and I support his approach, namely, it is not so important that a state renders an accurate report before it is accepted, but rather that a report should come in regularly. I commence on the report made to the heads of states. It is unfortunate that the majority of states have not given their Periodic Reports. My recollection is only about eight or nine states to give this report. The great majority of them including Gabon have not given the report.

Now what bothers me again, Mr. Chairman, is that the Charter coming into effect 1986, six years now. Do we expect three reports or do we expect one? I think it is probably more feasible if a state renders a report now, it should be encouraged to give subsequent reports two years after. In other words, it is not so much the perfectness of a report as the fact of giving a report. Now, our sanctions lie in nothing else than a report to the heads of state.

Now, we should find a place in our annual reports, activity reports, to categorize all the states that have given reports, those that have not, and those that are due and have not done so. I think this information should be part of the activity reports.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Ben Salem.

BEN SALEM:

Monsieur le Président, je dois vous dire que je ne peux pas malheureusement être d'accord avec le sens des deux dernières interventions que je viens d'entendre. Parce que, si je sais bien lire l'article 62 de la Charte Africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples, cet article dit que le rapport doit être présenté sur les mesures d'ordre législatives ou autres, prises en vue de donner effet. Je souligne les mots "donner effet" aux droits et libertés reconnus et garantis dans la présente Charte. Donc, ce n'est pas une question d'assistance ou d'aide à ces Gouvernements, c'est tout simplement le fait de vérifier si les dispositions qui sont dans cette Charte, notamment celles qui octroient des droits et des libertés, mais également des devoirs, il ne faut pas l'oublier. Si ces dispositions sont en train d'être mises en vigueur, d'être appliquées, d'être concrétisées dans les états qui ont ratifié cette Charte. Donc, ce n'est pas une question d'assistance, ce n'est pas une question de complaisance ou de compréhension envers les états, c'est tout simplement une question de vérification et c'est là, c'est à mon sens l'une des dispositions les plus importantes de la Charte parce que c'est une disposition qui donne droit à la Commission d'examiner ces rapports, donc d'examiner les mesures prises en vue de faire rentrer en vigueur les dispositions qui sont incluses dans la Charte.

Voilà, ce que je voulais dire Monsieur le Président et j'insiste sur le fait que ces rapports sont des rapports très importants, que ces rapports présentés devant la Commission donnent aussi bien une certaine importance à la Commission.

[Gap]

NGUEMA:

Je dois reconnaitre que je ne suis pas tout à fait au point sur ce problème parce que si je fais appel à peut-être ce qui se fait dans d'autres instances qui travaillent comme nous, et là je demande votre indulgence. Je souhaiterais que ceux qui ont l'habitude de travailler par exemple avec le comité des Droits de l'homme des Nations Unies à Genève nous disent si jamais il y a la pratique d'examen de rapports en l'absence même du représentant de l'état. Que je sache, Mr. Hall voudrait me répondre déjà sur ce point, je crois qu'il a tout le loisir de le faire maintenant.

CHRISTOPHER HALL:

Thank you. What the practice of the Human Rights Committee has been until quite recently was that if the representative did not appear, they would not consider the report, because they thought the importance of an exchange with the Government representative outweighed the necessity of going ahead and considering the report.

However, they have in the light of repeated failures by certain Governments to send representatives to explain their report, they have now adopted a practice which I believe will be implemented at the current session of the Human Rights Commission: after three failures by a government representative to show up, they will go ahead and consider the report in any event. I do not know whether the number three is a magic number or not, but it happened with regard to one particular country. They may decide to take a similar stance when the representative has failed to show up one time - I do not know. The second point that would be of interest is, when a government has failed to submit a report for a substantial length of time, and then has missed two or three deadlines so that it is now its third report is due, and then it attempts to submit a single report denominated the first, second and third report, the Human Rights Committee declines to consider it as a satisfaction of the second and third reports, but treats it as the first report. So I think that practice would be one the African Commission would like to consider. I am not aware of the practice with the Committee Against Torture, that's a relatively new body.

JANNEH:

Many thanks for the information, Mr. Hall. Commissioner Nguema.

NGUEMA:

Monsieur le Président je vous remercie, c'était donc un point sur lequel je voulais avoir des éclaircissements. Naturellement, nous ne sommes pas là pour copier bêtement ce qui se fait dans les autres instances. Après tout, nous sommes une commission africaine, autonome, mais les petits enfants copient les habitudes des pères etc.. etc.. et c'est pour cela que moi je voulais avoir la lumière sur le problème qui vient d'être évoqué.

Je pense pouvoir revenir à mon cas précis, le cas du Bénin, je crois qu'il a envoyé le rapport, je crois que c'est le rapport initial qui n'a jamais été présenté, enfin c'est la première fois que ce rapport arrive à la Commission. Je pense que, connaissant un peu les difficultés de nos états qui peuvent être aggravés plus ou moins, et je vous signale que une lettre, partant de Banjul pour arriver dans mon pays le Gabon, met deux mois pour y arriver. Alors que celle qui arrive de Paris arrive dans la semaine au plus tard. Il y a donc des difficultés d'un certain ordre sans occulter le fait que nos fonctionnaires, il faut le reconnaitre, ne sont pas encore tout à fait au point en matière de règle de fonctionnement administratif. Il y a des lettres qui peuvent très bien dormir dans les tiroirs sans raisons majeures, simplement parce que le fonctionnaire n'est pas du tout très au fait de l'urgence qui s'attache à la démarche.

C'est la raison pour laquelle je voudrais dire deux choses. En ce qui concerne le Bénin, comme c'est la première fois que nous avons son rapport, compte-tenu des difficultés que je viens d'évoquer, il est peut-être souhaitable de remettre à la prochaine session l'examen de ce rapport si tel est le cas, si telle est la décision.

La deuxième chose que je voudrais également souligner c'est que, ce n'est un secret pour personne, les Droits de l'Homme sont bafoués en Afrique et l'institution des rapports a justement pour objectif d'amener, d'instituer, d'instaurer un dialogue constructif entre la Commission et les Etats. Il faut dissiper l'opinion généralement admise qui laisse entendre que l'examen d'un rapport périodique c'est comme si l'on était devant un tribunal, nous ne sommes pas là pour juger les états, mais nous sommes là justement pour entretenir ce dialogue, nouer ce dialogue, de telle sorte que les difficultés puissent être examinées d'un commun accord entre la Commission et le représentant. Je crains que, si nous nous contentons de l'examen de ces rapports en l'absence des représentants, que si nous nous contentons de leur faire parvenir nos observations, que cela ne devienne finalement l'habitude et, malheureusement ce dialogue que nous voulons nouer entre la Commission et les états, ce dialogue risque d'être indéfiniment retardé.

Alors c'est pour cela que je pense nous devons tenir à tout prix, sauf vraiment cas exceptionnel, nous devons tenir à tout prix, que ce dialogue soit noué. Ceux qui ont fait déjà l'effort d'envoyer des rapports à Ca commission, je crois, peuvent également faire l'effort d'envoyer un représentant à la Commission. Il n'y a pas de difficulté de ce coté-là, les difficultés c'est peut-être de la part de ceux qui n'ont encore rien envoyé. Mais notre objectif ici, ce n'est pas de faire peur aux états, c'est de nouer ce dialogue qui nous permet d' examiner ensemble d'un commun accord, de façon concertée les difficultés et peut-être les solutions à donner à ces problèmes. Parce que si ce dialogue n'est pas instauré, il risque d'y avoir un dialogue de sourds, où ces gens-là pourront très bien se passer de nous - et vous savez très bien qu'ils peuvent le faire - et où d'un autre côté, nous risquons de nous résigner et de constater finalement que notre présence ici ne sert à rien. Finalement, c'est notre projet qui risque de capoter complètement, l'institution même la Commission africaine des droits de l'homme.

Alors, si nous n'arrivons pas à résoudre ce problème à ce niveau, nous sommes en train maintenant de demander qu'on mette une cour africaine des droits de l'homme, enfin, si nous ne pouvons même pas travailler au niveau d'une commission. Vous pensez très bien qu'au niveau d'une cour, ce n'est pas possible. Je crois qu'il ne faudrait pas que nous nous puissions nous montrer trop, trop pressés ou alors très virulents, ou absolument passionnés. Nous devons faire des démarches positives envers les états et il y a un certain nombre d'états, ceux qui ont envoyé les rapports, qui ont déjà fait preuve d'une certaine diligence de leur part. Il faut alors leur demander de franchir le dernier point, de telle sorte qu'ici nous puissions travailler, pas pour la Commission, mais pour le sort de l'Afrique. Ce n'est pas le sort de notre Commission qui est mis en cause, c'est toute l'Afrique, or nous sommes de cette Afrique-là, non seulement nous, mais tous nos parents etc..etc... Ces gens-là ont les yeux branchés sur nous, ils nous accordent beaucoup de crédits. Si, malheureusement, nous leurs disons que nous n'y pouvons rien, ce sera un peu la fin des haricots.

C'est la raison pour laquelle, pour me résumer pour le Bénin, je souhaite que si c'est la première fois qu'il a été convoqué, qu'on le reconvoque une deuxième fois, surtout que, dans ces pays-là couramment, vous avez à faire à deux ou trois gouvernements, on ne sait pas très bien celui qui est en vigueur. Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Gabou.

GABOU:

Merci Monsieur le Président, je voulais seulement rappeller seulement un certain nombre de principes qui, à mon avis et probablement de l'avis de la commission dans le passé, devrait diriger ou commander l'action de cette commission en cette matière.

Je vous rappelle d'abord qu'au début de nos sessions, au cours de l'une des premières sessions, nous avons constaté que l'article 62 ne donnait pas à la Commission le pouvoir d'examiner les rapports des états parce que, disions-nous, cet article n'avait pas précisé même auprès de qui on devait présenter ces rapports, et nous avions soumis à l'époque une résolution au sommet des chefs d'états, une résolution qui avait été prise et qui réglait cette procédure des rapports périodiques des états, et qui nous confiait expressément le pouvoir d'examiner ces rapports et confiait au Secrétaire Général de l'OUA le pouvoir de réclamer ces rapports aux états et de les recevoir. Je crois que c'est un principe qu'il fallait rappeler, l'article 62 en lui-même d'après nous, d'après cette commission, ne nous donnait pas le pouvoir d'examiner les rapports périodiques des états et c'est le sommet des chefs d'états qui a dit qu'on avait le pouvoir d'examiner ces rapports et que les états avaient le devoir de nous les présenter par l'intermédiaire du secrétaire général de l'OUA. Je crois qu'il fallait le rappeler.

La deuxième chose que je voulais aussi rappeller, c'est que nous ne sommes pas une juridiction, nous ne sommes pas une juridiction, pas même au moment de l'examen des communications. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que certains en Afrique, veulent que l'on crée une juridiction concernant les droits de l'homme. Nous ne sommes donc pas une juridiction. C'est aussi un éclairage qu'il faut donner à notre action.

Le troisième éclairage que je voudrais aussi que vous reteniez, c'est que les contrôles de ce genre ont déjà été institués dans des organisations internationales un peu plus vieilles que la nôtre. On le trouve ce contrôle au comité des droits de l'homme, on le trouve ce contrôle au comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. On le trouve à la Commission sur la torture, sur la discrimination, contre l'apartheid, en ce qui concerne le droit de la femme, tous ces organismes exercent à peu près le même contrôle. Vous constaterez que chez ces organismes-là, ce contrôle n'est pas exercé pour condamner les états - non - pour juger les états - non - pour dire que celui-ci est blanc et celui-là tout à fait noir - non -, mais uniquement pour les aider à mieux appliquer les chartes ou les traités dont ces organismes doivent assurer l'application ou vérifier l'application par les états. C'est aussi un éclairage qu'à mon avis, nous ne pouvons pas abandonner. Je ne vois pas pourquoi cette Commission devrait prendre une autre attitude que ces vieilles commissions bien expérimentées. Il nous faut aider les états.

Comment les aider? Nous, nous avons ici n'est-ce pas, un certain nombres de cas de figures. Certains états n'ont pas voulu nous présenter de rapports jusqu'à présent. C'est l'immense majorité des états membres de l'OUA, c'est vrai, quelques états ont présenté des rapports et même envoyé des délégués qui sont venus discuter avec nous. Il y en a même un, je me souviens, on était au Caire, c'était - je ne sais pas si ce n'était pas le Burundi, mais enfin un état des grands lacs qui étaient venus avec un rapport pour qu'on discute de la situation, qui se passait dans ce pays-là. C'était le Burundi je crois, de lui-même il est venu pour qu'on discute de la situation intérieure de ce pays. Évidemment, nous avons sauté sur l'occasion et nous avons discuté avec lui, on lui a donné les conseils qu'il fallait. Je ne sais pas le résultat que ça a donné, mais enfin peut-être que le secrétariat est en mesure de nous dire ce que ça a produit, mais je crois que cette attitude devrait être maintenue avec tous les autres. Je disais donc que ceux qui n'ont pas donné de rapports, ceux qui ont donné un rapport et ont envoyé quelqu'un pour discuter, ceux qui remis un rapport sans envoyer quelqu'un pour discuter avec nous. Mais dans tous ces cas-là, de toute façon, ce que nous devons faire, c'est amener ces états à discuter avec nous et à accepter des conseils pour mieux appliquer notre Charte de sorte que nos parents bénéficent mieux des Droits qui sont prévus ici.

Maintenant, qu'est ce qu'il faut faire? Est-ce qu'il faut convoquer indéfiniment les états, leur demander indéfiniment d'envoyer des représentants. Non, je crois que pour ceux qui ont déjà envoyé le rapport, on peut faire autrement, ça c'est une indication que je donne comme cela, nous pouvons discuter nous-mêmes tout seul, sans eux, de leur rapports et leur écrire en leur disant: nous avons lu votre rapport en l'absence évidemment de votre délégué voici ce que nous avons cru comprendre que vous faites chez vous, enfin peut-être que vous pourriez venir vous expliquer mieux ce que vous voulez dire, pour l'année à venir.

A mon avis tout ce qui doit être fait, doit tendre à ça, pour que ces états acceptent finalement d'appliquer la Charte et que nous, citoyens africains, bénéfiçions des droits qui sont prévus dans la Charte. C'est tout ce que je voulais souligner M. le Président. Merci beaucoup.

JANNEH:

Thank you. Commissioner Umozurike.

UMOZURKE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to disagree with an important part of what the last speaker said, while I agree generally with his approach to this Periodic Report. I think it would be wrong for us to prejudge what a recommendation about a state could be. We end up making a recommendation, we cannot do more. It may be one that condemns in some terms, we shouldn't prejudge at this stage how it is going to be, because I believe as time goes on we will be more and more teeth to our recommendations and live up to the expectations of the African Charter itself.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think some times when we speak about these matters, we are not being realistic. The question is, what is the best thing to do in the circumstances? Nobody doubts that we have to implement the Charter, we have to protect human rights, but my colleague had only mentioned a while ago he had only just talked about the 'south syndrome'. People could not write us, we should give them six years. Now, how many states can really afford to be here? That is a question - you cannot ignore that. If we say we cannot take a report unless a state representative is here, it is almost certain, as certain as that night follows day, that most states will not be in a financial situation to do it. Some states have done it. We should encourage all states to do it, but my point is we should not mark time just because a state has not sent a representative. As of now, most of them have not given reports, and we can foresee that in next two or three years, most will continue not to give reports.

Now as for those who have given, I think, if they are not physically present, we should make a good study and make a further recommendation to that state, so to help them improve their human rights records and in that way what studies of people do they send here, what official do they send, how do the officials convey back to their governments what was said here? I would sooner rely on what we write, than on what an official officially - one that is not too senior - what an official is likely to say to his boss, to his boss at home and what his boss will pass on to the government.

We should not overemphasize what we can achieve by throwing questions at a Government representative. I think we should aim at keeping an even pace and at drawing a balance between those states that are not likely to submit and those other states that are likely to conform with the Charter. Thank you.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Ben Salem.

BEN SALEM:

Je serais bref, M. le Président, tout simplement pour dire que, pour ma part, il ne s'agit nullement d'entrer dans une quelconque analyse juridique de l'article 62, ni dans quelque joute oratoire que ce soit. Pour moi, il s'agit tout simplement d'une situation qui est assez déplorable, que nous sommes en train tous d'analyser ici ensemble et d'analyser sans virulence, sans aucune impatience et sans passion même si, pour ma part, j'ose croire que tous les membres de la Commission ici présents sont des passionnés des Droits de l'Homme.

Une situation déplorable - pourquoi? Parce que tout simplement si on regarde les chiffres qui nous ont été donnés par Amnesty International, nous constatons tout simplement qu'il y a 36 états qui n'ont même pas présenté leur rapport initial. Et qu'il y a 32 autres qui n'ont pas présenté leur second rapport. Je crois qu'un tel nombre, qu'une majorité massive ne peut pas nous permettre de continuer sur cette lancée. Je ne savais pas que la conférence au sommet des Chefs d'états Africains avait pris une résolution et le commissaire Gabou vient de le rappeler. Si résolution il y a eu, c'est à dire que nous avons aujourd'hui les moyens de saisir le Secrétaire Général de l'OUA pour lui demander officiellement de saisir ces états pour leur défaillance et je propose à notre Commission de faire en sorte que cette procédure soit mise en place telle qu'elle est bien sûr, initiée par la résolution prise par la conférence au sommet. Merci M. le Président.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Mokama.

MOKAMA:

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief too. I share the views expressed by Commissioner Umozurike and Commissioner Ben Salem. I think it is clear that many states are not particularly good at submitting their reports, and therefore those few states which have submitted the reports should be given the maximum encouragement by our considering their reports as expeditiously as it is possible.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I think as of now it might help the NGOs present here if all the various countries which have submitted their reports now are indicated and the Rapporteurs of those particular countries are also indicated, because, Mr. Chairman, we are not given the whole list and some of us who have countries whose reports we are studying would like to have some contributions from the NGOs here present. So that in assessing the report we do have some background information from those people who are on the ground.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to endorse what Commissioner Ben Salem said. What we should do is take advantage of the Assistant Secretary General here that he should, as soon as possible, get the Secretary General to send a circular to the ministries which have not submitted the reports to be aware that this report is required, so that we should have a trickle of reports coming in rather than the situation now.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like us to give the maximum encouragement to those states which have submitted their reports, and not seem to be subjecting them to some harassment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Buhedma.

BUHEDMA [Statement No. 12, Arabic]:

Thank youMr President. I will be brief in discussing this issue which is a general subject previously covered by my colleagues, who expressed their different points of view. However, I believe that my honourable colleague, Mr. Mokama, has arrived at a wording that reflects our points of view, by stressing the importance of submitting the Periodical Reports on time by the countries, which is a principle we are all keen to honour. However, as previously mentioned, that in some cases, there were certain circumstances that might have made it difficult for some countries to stick to this principle. I believe that it is most important to ensure the continuity of the dialogue with these countries by establishing continuous communication, whether through the general secretariat or directly through the Chair of this commission. We should urge these countries to submit their reports and to send representatives to attend the discussions of such reports. This subject was previously discussed in other sessions and I believe that we have always aimed at urging these countries to submit their reports and to establish some kind of dialogue and to induce them to implement the charter within their national legislation in a manner that complies with its spirit and clauses.

Mr. President, I believe it is time for us to finalise this subject in the manner suggested by my colleague Mr. Mokama in order to arrive to an accepted formula which is:

First: To discuss the reports submitted by the countries in the absence of their representatives. In case there is an urgency that requires the presence of the country's representative, then I would suggest to postpone discussing this particular report until we request this country once more to send a representative. We should also urge those countries who did not present any reports at all, through the general secretary of the organisation and the Chair of this commission simultaneously. I believe that the Chair of the commission can deliver his messages to the Foreign Ministers to remind them of their countries' duties in this regard. These messages should give an objective picture of the situation in these countries which have submitted reports and the countries which have not.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Nguema.

NGUEMA:

Je vous remercie M. le Président, je crois que j'ai suffisamment parlé sur ce point, je crois que l'important ici vient d'être souligné par l'ensemble des membres de notre Commission, la nécessité d'établir un dialogue. Si nous coupons les ponts entre la Commission et les états, je crois que nous courons à la faillite. Il va y avoir d'un côté les gouvernements et de l'autre la Commission et dans certains états d'Afrique, nous savons à quels resultats ces attitudes ont abouti: à l'incompréhension - et c'est l'incompré-hension qui entraine des guerres et nous en avons connu et nous en connaissons maintenant, alors que les choses auraient dû s'arranger autour d'une table où les uns et les autres puissent échanger leurs points de vues. C'est la raison pour laquelle je voudrais un peu, être réservé sur le fait que, si ces dialogues doivent être entrepris, je crois que le fait d'envoyer des lettres de la Commission aux états et des états à la Commission risque vraiment de détruire notre mission ici. Les lettres vous savez en Afrique, ça ne sert à rien du tout et ça ne régle pas les problèmes. Souvent nous l'avons experimenté ici, nous avons écrit à plusieurs Chefs d'état, Président en exercice de l'OUA. Nous n'avons même pas eu de réponse, rien, et je suis sûr que, en tout cas dans mon pays, c'est ce que dit le Président, à chaque fois que je lui parle des problèmes, que j'ai essayé d'évoquer par écrit, il me dit toujours "pourquoi tu n'es pas venu me voir? je n'ai pas vu la lettre." Alors c'est la raison pour laquelle nous ne devons pas nous contenter des écrits, les écrits ça, c'est l'affaire des blancs. Chez nous je crois qu'il faut discuter vis-à-vis, si nous laissons ça pour s'attacher à des écrits, nous allons, vous savez que chez nous il y a des lois qui sont mêmes faites rien que pour les Nations Unies, les gens savent très bien que sur place ça ne signifie rien du tout. Je vais vous donner peut-être un exemple que je connais le mieux, c'est notre pays le Gabon, nous sommes à peu près dans les 600.-700.000 habitants mais le Président ayant constaté que finalement, la Banque Mondiale ne prête qu'à des grands pays, qui ont des millions et des millions, par décret nous avons dit que désormais la population gabonaise est de 1 200 000. Et ça a été écrit, et ça réjouit tous ces organismes internationaux. Ils sont contents. Mais tout le monde sait que ça ne sert à rien. Voyez, alors je crois que si nous nous engageons dans ces histoires d'écrit, ça va faire du pinpon. Nous risquons d'être des diplomates, on écrit et ils vont répondre ou ne pas répondre. Or nous ne sommes pas un tribunal. Si nous envoyons un écrit, ils vont croire qu'on a à faire à un jugement alors que, comme vous l'avez très bien expliqué, M. Gabou, nous ne sommes pas un tribunal. Alors nous devons donc, après avoir épuisé les ressources qui nous sont propres, faire en sorte que nous puissions au moins avancer au lieu de déboucher sur des échecs. C'est la raison pour laquelle, je pense, s'agissant des états qui ont envoyé leur rapport il est souhaitable de les inviter 2 fois, 3 fois peut-être. Si vraiment ils ne viennent pas à ce moment-là, nous allons constater les résultats mais, nous fier aux écrits, vous allez tuer l'Afrique, ça je vous le dis tranquillement, avec ces écrits on ne règle rien en Afrique. Voilà, M. le président, mon avis sur ce point.

[... Different English speaking commissioners...]

NGUEMA:

M. le président, je croyais que j'avais donné mon opinion sur le cas du Bénin et considéré que c'est la première fois que nous avons ce rapport. Ils ont déjà fait un effort pour confectionner un rapport périodique. Nous ne savons pas les raisons pour lesquelles ils ne sont pas là, mais je suis sûr que le Bénin, compte-tenu de sa situation actuelle est prêt à envoyer quelqu'un pour défendre son rapport. C'est la raison pour laquelle je propose que l'examen de ce rapport soit renvoyé à la prochaine session à condition qu'entre temps le Bénin soit informé de la décision. Je vous remercie.

[... The president... closed the session]

SUMMARY OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE STATE REPORT OF NIGERIA

The Vice-chairman of the African Commission, Mr. Janneh, chaired the meeting in the absence of the Chairman. The Nigerian Government was represented by Ms. Dowodu. He noted that although he was Special Rapporteur for the report, he had only received it moments before and had not had time to study it and to formulate questions.

Mr. Niang, legal officer of the Secretariat, noted that the Secretariat likewise had only just received the report and had not had time to distribute or translate it. Thus it only existed in English.

Mr. Janneh first asked the representative of Nigeria, if she had problems providing the basic documents of Nigeria, such as the Constitution and the Criminal Code, which should have been included in the report. The representative apologized and said that she had had to come to the session to present the report with extremely short notice so she had not had time to collect all the necessary documents.

Ms. Dowodu introduced the report by describing its contents paragraph by paragraph. This description included the constitutional history of Nigeria, which had naturally been influenced by the political history of the military administration, the current constitutional situation, and the organization of the courts. The report also made mention of all the programmes instituted by the Nigerian Government to implement human rights, including law reform and the establishment of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, including women's rights.

Mr. Janneh began the dialogue by asking if Nigeria had incorporated the African Charter, and about the relationship between Nigerian human rights non-governmental organizations and the Nigerian Government. He asked if any acts restricted the press, and whether large numbers of people were held in prison for political reasons or awaiting trial.

Ms. Dowodu responded that the Charter was contained in a chapter of the 1990 acts of the Federation. She maintained that the relationship between human rights activists and the Nigerian Government was cordial, and that hundreds of newpapers and journals were published in Nigeria without harrassment.

She acknowledged that in times of social unrest when the Government needed to restore tranquility, it might lead to many arrests, but there were no current political detainees. Many people were awaiting trial for violation of acts restricting the press, but a Prison Reform Committee under the Ministry of Justice was working to improve prison conditions to conform with international standards. New prisons were under construction to reduce overcrowding, and people awaiting trial were held separated from those convicted. The Chief Justice of Nigeria also summarily frees people, at his discretion if they have been held for lengthy periods of time before their cases have been heard.

Commissioner Mokama asked for clarification on the situation under the suspended Constitution, and on the operation of the special tribunals.

Commissioner Buhedma thanked Nigeria for submitting its report and sending a representative. He stressed that the examination of state reports should be honest and aimed at the practical implementation of human rights. He then asked about the operation of the special tribunals, specifically how the right to a fair trial could be guaranteed if there was no right to appeal. He lamented the existence of capital punishment, saying that it contradicted the right to life, and that he was speaking not only to Nigeria but to all African countries in which human rights violations occurred.

He asked about detention and the right to defense, and about the independence of the Nigerian Bar Association. He asked how the limited number of only two political parties could be consistent with the right to free association. He noted that the report was not available in Arabic and that this had possibly impaired his understanding. He asked about the remedies available to those who had been expelled en masse, and for a complete list of the international instruments of human rights that Nigeria had ratified.

Commissioner Janneh asked if there had been any cases in which members of the police or the armed forces had been convicted of committing torture.

The representative of Nigeria responded that although there had been a time during which the military Government suspended the Constitution and promulgated draconian decrees, certain constitutional provisions had been restored when the present military Government came into power. She affirmed that human rights acts are still applied by the courts.

Special tribunals had been used in Nigeria since the military intervention because the law courts were overburdened with cases and therefore special tribunals were necessary to provide prompt trials. She said that a serving or retired judge always chaired the tribunal and assured that proper legal procedure was respected. Legal representation was assured before these tribunals, and while no regular right to appeal to the Nigerian courts existed, all judgments were reviewed administratively before being confirmed.

Commissioner Mokama asked if the difference between the special tribunals and the regular courts were one of procedure or merely of subject matter. He voiced concern as to whether these tribunals provided all the safeguards of the regular courts. If there were a shortage of judges, he thought it would be better to appoint more, rather than establishing special tribunals.

Commissioner Ben Salem expressed the opinion that a special tribunal was by definition outside the regular consitutional structure, that is, a court set up by the executive. He said that the presence of military people in such tribunals necessarily contradicted the powers of an independent judiciary.

The representative of Nigeria reiterated that the chief justification for special tribunals was the need for speedy trials, since the regular courts could not cope with the volume of cases generated by the civil disturbances in Nigeria. She said that the procedure before these tribunals was the same as before regular courts, and that the military personnel who participated were lawyers as well, and that they worked as a panel with the sitting judges of the tribunal. She said that the right to counsel was guaranteed before these tribunals.

Two of these special tribunals were the Armed Robbery Tribunal and the Micellaneous Offences tribunals. In response to further questions from Commissioners Mokama and Kisanga, she explained that the judgments of these tribunals, while reviewed administratively, could not be appealed to the Nigerian Supreme Court, but that suits against the tribunals for procedural violations could be brought before regular courts.

Ms. Dowodu explained that the reason why there were only two political parties in Nigeria was that during the first years of civilian rule after independence, political parties were formed along religious and ethnic lines and were not accomplishing the purpose of political parties.

Commissioner Kisanga asked for explanations as to why it had taken Nigeria so long to send a representative to enable examination of its report, even though the Commission had even once met in Lagos. He then asked how the problems relating to suspension of the Constitution would be overcome by August of 1993, the target date for its restoration. He wanted to know at what level of the courts human rights claims were justiciable, and if there was a legal aid program to help those who could not afford counsel. He inquired about the state of public awareness of human rights, and what the level of literacy is in Nigeria.

Commissioner Beye noted that since the report was only in English he had had difficulty understanding it, since he was a Francophone. He went on asking Nigeria to call on African as well as international organizations when recruiting observers for the coming elections. He noted that the African Charter was the first international legal instrument to recognize the right to development and asked how this right might be implemented.

Commissioner Ben Salem noted that the report was silent on the subject of democratic evolution in Nigeria. He said that news had recently reached him about the suspension of publication of two of the most important newspapers, and that journalists had been imprisoned. He acknowledged that perhaps he had misunderstood the translation, but if many new prisons were under construction in Nigeria he was curious as to why, and wondered if it might be possible for members of the Commission to visit these prisons.

He also inquired about the meaning of some remarks made by the Inspector General of the Nigerian police on the radio to the effect that all human rights organizations in Nigeria were under police surveillance. He closed by asking if in the future, Nigeria would collect all decisions from domestic courts which cited the African Charter and present these decisions to the Commission.

Commissioner Nguema expressed relief at the presence of the Nigerian representative. He voiced concern over the suspension of the Constitution and asked what protections would be available to the people and should the Nigerian legislature pass an act which violated human rights. He acknowledged that scepticism had been expressed over the intention of the OAU to protect human rights, since most violations of human rights were committed by state governments. He then asked what the Nigerian Government had done to vindicate the rights of Nigerian citizens who had been the victims of mass expulsions from other African countries.

Commissioner Janneh asked what steps Nigeria had taken to implement the Charter, specifically by eradicating harmful traditional practices, expecially those that amount to discrimination against women.

Commissioner Mokama said it seemed to him that the Constitution had been completely superceded by military decrees, and if this was in fact the case then Nigeria should not have submitted its Constitution at all, since it was irrelevant, but the military decrees in stead. He described a decree in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association which not only specified that it may not be challenged by the courts, but also provided that any person who tried to institute a court action over the decree was guilty of a crime. He said he could hardly believe this without having an official copy of the Nigerian Gazette, but if it was true it constituted a serious restriction of the access to the courts. In this situation the courts were really irrelevant to the defense of human rights, because the military decrees were the acts which took precedence.

Commissioner Kisanga expressed agreement with Commissioner Kisanga's concerns, and said that he had received supplementary information from Nigerian non-governmental organizations which led him to ask further questions with regard to incommunicado detentions and violations of the independence of the courts. He asked about an increase in illegal searches, and the closing of newspapers. He said he was likewise concerned with the situation regarding the Nigerian Bar.

The representative of Nigeria specified that the 1979 Constitution was in effect, because the 1989 Constitution contained provisions for civilian government which had to be suspended. She said that despite the Constitution Suspension and Modification Decree, human rights provisions were still enforced by the law courts.

On the subject of arbitrary arrests, she said that all persons arbitrarily arrested had been released, but that such steps were reasonably justifiable in the light of the disturbances in the Nigerian society which the Government was trying to put down. She acknowledged that sometimes the Government does find itself at odds with human rights activists.

The right to development was being implemented through government economic programmes, including programmes granting loans for the setting up of small scale industry. She mentioned the People's Bank and the Directorate for Food and Rural Development, and the Better Life Programme which is creating awareness especially with respect to women about the fact that they may be economically self-sufficient. There were many seminars, symposia and workshops to educate women about their rights, and also the issue of female circumcision was raised.

Legal aid was provided for through the Legal Aid Scheme which had expanded considerably. Lawyers from the Legal Aid Division even visit prisons and seek out those who do not have legal representation.

Ms. Dowodu said that perhaps the Nigerian Government had cooperated in the expulsion of Nigerians who were illegal immigrants in other countries out of consideration for later inconveniences which these immigrants would suffer after if they remained in countries that did not welcome them.

Concerning the delay the submitting of the Nigerian report, she explained that there had been frequent changes in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that somehow the proper authority had not been notified of Nigeria's obligation. She also cited difficulties in the preparation of the report since the capital city was in the process of being moved from Lagos to Abuja.

Ms. Dowodu said that human rights was being taught in both secondary schools and universities, and that Nigeria had a national goal of total literacy by the year 2000.

Because the decree in respect of the Nigerian Bar Association was so recent, the representative said she did not feel she could comment on it.

Commissioner Ben Salem asked that the report of Nigeria should be completed by submitting written responses to the questions asked at the examination.

Commissioner Mokama asked the representative of Nigeria to convey to the Government the concern of the Commission about the political situation in the country. He said the Commission would be reassured if there were no further attempts to oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian judiciary, which had been the most stable institution in the country.

Commissioner Nguema stressed the importance of receiving written responses to the questions that had been asked. He expressed the hope that, as General Babangida was the Acting Chairman of the OAU, more attention would be given to the cases of serious or massive violations of human rights referred to the OAU by the Commission.

EXAMINATION OF THE STATE REPORT OF NIGERIA

Chairing: Vice-Chairman JANNEH

JANNEH:

The next report is the one of Nigeria, which will be examined at 4 o'clock. I am the Rapporteur and it is madness really, because I have just been given this for the first time. We will have to have a bite. I hope that all commissioners will join in asking quite a few questions. I would have been very happy if I had gotten this document earlier. But we cannot let the ambassador go without dealing with the report.

NIANG:

Monsieur le Président, c'était pour informer les honorables membres de la Commission, que le secrétariat vient tout juste de recevoir le rapport du Nigéria, et là les dispositions ont été immédiatement prises pour les photocopier et les distribuer. Malheureusement, le rapport n'existe qu'en version anglaise.

BEYE:

Deux minutes seulement, toujours pour le rapport périodique. Nous l'avons dit à notre précédente session qu'un effort soit fait sur 2 plans. Le premier plan, dès que les rapports arrivent, qu'on les envoie aux commissaires pour qu'ils aient le temps de les lire avant d'arriver à Banjul, qu'on envoie les rapports aux commissaires. Je ne parle pas du Nigéria, je les ai reçu hier à la maison.

Deuxièmement, on avait demandé un effort sur la traduction. Je ne crois même pas que des mesures ont été prises pour assurer la traduction, alors qu'ils fassent des efforts. Parce que là cette après-midi, on sera nous autres des figurants. Je ne peux rien apporter au rapport sur le Nigeria. Je suis obligé de vous laisser seul vous battre.

JANNEH:

I agree. Even I will not contribute fully.

JANNEH:

Well, my first question really is, I mean, do you have any particular problems in presenting us with certain basic documents? By that I mean the constitution, which you have just brought us, but which has taken quite a long time, and perhaps your criminal court or, if you have any preventing detention, legislation, etc.

DOWODU:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that copies of the constitution have just been distributed. Actually I made efforts yesterday to make copies for the Commissioners, and it was only the reports that came in late, I mean that is today - that came in today.

Copies of criminal court and (procedure) laws, I could not bring them along, because in fact the instance of my coming here was of such a manner, that I never knew, as a matter of fact, that the Commission was holding at this time, because the information we got was that the Commission meeting will be from the 30th of April. And up until the 29th - that is the Monday that I left Nigeria - we were not sure. So I just came because I tried to get conformation from Banjul that the meeting is actually holding or has started, and luckily my minister, the honourable secretary of my minister, came along - and so, in order not to miss the plane, miss my flight and things like that, that was how I came.

Because I met, I think two persons or so in Lagos, and they just told me that "Are you aware the commission is meeting?" I said "no, it cannot be, because the information that I have the notice for invitation says that the meeting is going to be on April 30th." So I rushed to my minister, fortunately he was in town, that is the 29th, and that was how I came. So I just picked the things I could get, because I just went to work normally on that day. And that was how I got here on Monday the 29th. So I am sorry, Mr. Chairman that...

JANNEH:

You have nothing to be sorry for, we should be sorry, if indeed that was the notice you got that is very unfortunately missed. And I should definitely apologize on behalf of the Commission. I do not quite understand what happened - we wont waste any time by making inquiries from the Secretariat at this stage.

Be that as it may, it would appear that both you yourself and we are rather handicapped, but we just cannot allow you to go away without doing something, so we will do our best under the circumstances.

The second question I want to pose is: are there plans with Nigeria to incorporate the Charter - that is the African Charter on Human and People's Rights into... I have just been reminded by my brother, Commissioner Mokama, that the procedure was established yesterday, and that we should permit you to make a presentation. I do not know if you are ready for that, from what you have been telling us - are you ready to make a presentation? Well, could you go ahead please?

DOWODU:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honour to present the Periodic Report on the human rights record of Nigeria. It is a brief introduction, and I shall just explain the layout as follows. The first paragraph I wrote about the historical background of our legislative practice, especially the constitutional experience of Nigeria. The second paragraph talks about independence period to 1979. The status of democracy in Nigeria during that period, and it is also during that period that we experienced military intervention and military administration. The 1979 period was one of epoch because of the Nigeria constitution making history - it was a period that Nigeria constitutional making progress took the different tone from the previous ones, from the pre-independence and independence period. And under that paragraph the different rights and provisions of human rights were enumerated, even though briefly.

The third paragraph says the constitution. Under this paragraph we tried to discuss certain aspects of the constitution as is practised in the country. We talked about the doctrine of separation, which is the sub-head, the constitution legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Then the judicial itself, the type of courts we have in Nigeria, special the jurisdiction of the high courts, which is what we do in Nigeria, and legal aid, human rights and administration of justice, legal aid scheme in Nigeria and the Nigerian bar. Those subheads constitute the third paragraph of the Periodic Report.

Then we have the fourth paragraph - the human rights and the present administration. Under this paragraph we have a lot of things, a lot of programmes that have been put in place by the present administration in furtherance of human rights. We have under this paragraph law review, revision, and reform reporting. Mention is made of publications we have made in furtherance promotion and protection of human rights. And education as schools, the educational policy which for the human rights principles. We also had training in human rights, even though only a short list was enumerated there.

Then the fifth paragraph consists of the national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, those we have in place in Nigeria. Under this we have social and economic programme, then the transition to civil law programme. The paragraph six, parts of it too, talks about promotional protection of women's right, betters life, and some other commissions and committees that we have.

The last paragraph is the conclusion. Under this paragraph we also tried to enumerate some of the international instruments on human rights that Nigeria is party to. Briefly, sir, this is the report of Nigeria.

JANNEH:

I thank you very much for your presentation. Now, as I explained, a dialogue will now ensue, whereby we will pose certain questions, not by way of cross examination, but only for the purpose of getting elucidation. I am the Rapporteur, I lead, but all my colleagues here will have an opportunity, if they so wish, to pose questions. And you may pose questions too, by the way.

Now one aspect I want to ask on is this: the question of whether the African Charter has been incorporated in - the African Charter on Human and People's Rights - has been incorporated in your constitution or law? The reason I ask, in some countries, especially francophone or napoleonic system countries, they do tend to have self-executing treaties whereby the Charter, which is a treaty in international law with automatically become part of the law of the land. In some other countries, that is not the case, it has to be introduced by way of legislation through parliament. So I want to know what is the present state of things as far as Nigeria is concerned?

DOWODU:

I thought I was going to listen to all the questions, as it is was yesterday, and then answer later, on some things.

JANNEH:

We shall do it that way. Especially in view of the fact that we have just got the constitution and cannot go into it and specifically. I won't pose all the questions though, I will just pose just a few questions out of my list, and then see whether I will come back.

That is one, the other question is, what is the present relationship between the government of Nigeria and the human rights activists and non-governmental organisations? I have in mind people like Faweh Nume and the Civil Liberties Organisation, who have had a lot of reports concerning detentions of prominent human rights activists. Although eventually we have learned of their release. I want to know whether the climate has now changed for the better in that regard?

Thirdly, are there any laws restricting the freedom of the press, apart from the general law of the land? Such as the law relating to libel exceptions. Do you have, for instance, press censorship?

And the fourth and last question for the moment: do you have a large number of accused persons in jail awaiting trials for long periods? And I am not only referring to political prisoners, I am referring to any person. And a further question: do the jails in Nigeria have a remand wing for unconvicted prisoners.

That will be that for the time being. I think you will start with those, and then you will have another dose.

DOWODU:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Nigerian situation with respect to the Charter - incorporation of the Charter in our laws - is that the Charter has been incorporated into our laws. In fact it is contained under the 1990 laws of the Federation. It occupies one of the chapters in the 1990 laws of the Federation, and our degree, what our constitution says is that for a treaty, or any international law agreement between Nigeria and any other country can be seen as applicable, such must be - must pass through our constitutional process, the national assembly. And that has been done with respect to the Charter, and it has been legislated as one of our laws, under the 1990 laws, that's the position.

With respect to human rights activists, the climate is very very cordial. The Nigerian Government happens to run one of the freest, to permit one of the freest press in the world. And the press people, the media, they are allowed to write, to make criticisms, to report, as freely as they want. As a matter of fact, Nigeria has so many media, print houses, electronic media, over a lot of hundred or more, we have such journals. We have so many, and there is no problem about harassments, of their carrying out their business.

With respect to detentions or arrests, as the Chairman mentioned. The Mr. Chairman would agree with me, that when there are sudden extraordinary happenings or so in the country, the government, in order to restore peace and tranquillity, would step in, i order to make interrogations, investigations, sometimes it will necessitate making arrests, effecting arrests, and when such is done, the practise in Nigeria is, that those who are arrested, they are properly charged, they do not stay on in detention, like that, indefinitely, charges are brought against them, and they are tried. That is what normally, usually happens in Nigeria. And like the Chairman himself has said, invariably they get released after such processes have taken place. We do not have right now any case of political detainees in Nigeria, not even the human rights activists, and they are allowed to operate freely within the country.

With respect to laws restricting the press, I have mentioned that, there are a large number of accused persons in jail awaiting trials. A lot of things have been going on, programmes to make sure that we do not have prisons overcrowded by people who are not tried. We have committees settle. We have the Prisons Reform Committee which is being handled by my ministry, the Federal Ministry of Justice, and we have a lot of reforms, too, even in the Nigerian prisons authority. Right now many new prisons that comply with an international standard had been settled in many areas of the country - we have in the middle belt in the North, mostly those areas, although we have in the South. It is a pity that one was not properly prepared to come before the Commission - I would have brought the latest data on these new prisons, the buildings and so on, and the prison authority now want to make sure that number of prisoners do not exceed what they should be.

We also have a place for those awaiting trials - in effecting the new prison reforms, they are now building places where they keep the people awaiting trial, different from those who have been convicted and the criminals. We have that going on presently. We also have the practise where the Chief Justice of the nation goes around, and he looks, and wherever he finds that there are people who have not been tried and they are overstaying - perhaps they have gone nearly half of what they would actually be convicted their sentence, they let these people go. In order to decongest the prison. We have a committee that does that, the decongestion of our prisons. These are all programs that are being done on a regular basis in our country.

JANNEH:

I take it you are finished for the time being. I must say I am particularly glad to hear that in the 1990 constitution which admittedly has not yet come into effect, you have provision for the incorporation of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. I must say that definitely is an initiative in the right direction, in so far as the common law countries in Africa are concerned, and I hope that practice will be adopted by the other African countries who do not already have adequate provisions covering provisions of the Charter either in their constitutions or within the general law. So I am most glad for that piece of information.

And with that I give the floor to Commissioner Mokama.

MOKAMA:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the Nigerian constitution - the present one in force and possibly the new that is coming - one cannot but be very deeply impressed at the thoroughness with which it attempts to protect all the human rights. And Mr. Chairman, I was very fortunate to visit Nigeria for the first time during the appellate courts conference which was held in Abuja, and we met all the judiciary of Nigeria. It is in fact very very impressive...

[Gap]

... In other words, although in the statute, they are made inoperative, in order for the government to achieve certain objectives. And I am glad to be informed about which provisions of the constitutions are suspended. And secondly, I understand that in certain cases there are special tribunals outside this hierarchy of the judiciary of Nigeria, which are set up to deal with some special cases, and that the decisions of these tribunals are not subject to review by any court of law or something to that effect. That, to me, is probably the one question that concerns me, because although impressed as I am about the Nigerian constitution, if it is in fact not subject to a review, or some parts of it can be suspended, or there are certain courts which perhaps are not even spelled out here in the constitution, which have jurisdiction, that is not subject to review by the constitutional tribunals, I would be alarmed, Mr. Chairman. But perhaps let me leave those two questions. Thank you.

JANNEH:

I give the floor to Commissioner Buhedma.

BUHEDMA [Statement No. 13, Translation from Arabic, Nigeria]:

Mr. President, I would like to commence by welcoming the delegates of Nigeria who are present today to clarify and to reply to the queries relating to Nigeria's initial report which they are submitting for the first time. Their presence today confirms the eagerness of the Nigerian Government to contribute to the work of this Commission thus implementing the terms of the African Charter that commits its member countries to present Periodic Reports to this committee. We would like to express our appreciation of this effort and to thank the Nigerian Government for attending today and for their explanation of this report.

Mr. President, I would like to begin my speech by saying that we are anxious to discuss in details, the affairs of this great African country that is wealthy in its own resources, populace and culture. This great country should be an example to many of our countries, therefore, if we discuss some aspects relating to it, it is only to strive for better practical, rather than theoretical implementation of human rights. This requires more candidness from us because our aim, as I previously mentioned, is to develope these rights and to co-operate with the Government of Nigeria to arrive at a better formula for the application and respect of these rights rather than to simply express them within the laws and legislation.

You are aware, Mr. President, that during the past years and till recently we have received and still receive every day some information in connection with the procedures or specific human rights issues specifically with regards to the right of receiving justice and generally to the rights of defence. Undoubtedly there is exceptional legislation in Nigeria that has not been mentioned in detail in this report and it certainly affects the citizens' human rights stipulated by the African Charter, since it has been existing for a considerable period.

I would like to stress two or three subjects noting that we are still in need of more details in this regard. As we all know, there are extraordinary courts in Nigeria. These courts were formed in accordance with presidential decrees specifically the Presidential decree. No. 2 for the year 1987, dealing with the trial of the accused for certain crimes. Later on in December 1992, another decree No. 55 was issued disallowing the right to appeal against decisions of the extraordinary courts. There is no doubt, Mr. President, that according to the Charter, the principles of Justice, the international norms of justice or the defence rights, the issue of existence of extraordinary courts is in itself considered unacceptable, so what about if this procedure disallows the right to appeal against its decisions?

The decisions of these courts, Mr. President, can reach the extent of capital punishment which contradicts the right to life, of defence and the right of receiving justice. I wanted to stress the importance of this point, not only in Nigeria but throughout the African continent. This speech is not directed to the Nigerian people only but to all the African countries where there is violation or disrespect of the principles stipulated in the African Charter, not to mention the international charters, conventions and protocols. This point relates directly to the issue of freedom, for whenever there is a transitional period or a period of military rule, naturally the constitution is suspended and this gives way to procedures affecting human rights. Our opinion in this regard is self-explanatory.

Mr. President, I would also like to point out that the report has not clearly discussed the procedures of provisional detention, the individual's rights when he is subjected to detention, the period of detention and whether there is a possibility of appeal and to which authorities, as well as all the other customary procedures that are well known in any country enjoying the supremacy of law.

The other point, Mr. President, is why did the report not deal with issues like the right of defence and the right to appoint a lawyer. This is closely linked to the subject of union organisation, freedom of association and the freedom to form bar association. The bar association is not only a formality but has to enjoy total independence.

I would also like to refer, Mr. President, to the issue of implementation of the African Charter in national legislation. I realise that I have already mentioned it, and it was replied to, but I also mentioned the issue of the right to form societies while the report mentioned that there are only two parties, that is if I clearly understood the report which is written in the English language. I would hereby like to reiterate that though the Arabic language is one of the official languages in this organisation, yet our meeting did not witness any Arabic document. However, we endeavour to maintain the continuity of the tasks of this Commission, though I believe it is extremely important to have the reports in Arabic in order to assist the Arabic speaking members. Without deviating from the subject, what I wanted to say is that the report submitted by Nigeria mentioned the existence of two parties only, do you believe that this is in compliance with the right to form societies? A right which is of utmost importance?

Mr. President, a few years ago, several groups of African citizens were subjected to mass expulsion. So, what are the procedures taken to settle these cases, and to prevent the recurrence of such incidents? The report stated that there are many principles and rights, included in the constitution, which are partially enforced up till now, as you mentioned. Naturally, it is insufficient to merely stipulate these rights in constitutions since there is not any legislation governing and facilitating the exercise of these rights and freedoms. Is there any such legislation? If yes, are there any limitations to these freedoms. Mr. President, many times has a constitution stipulated certain principles or rights, but the implementation and exercise of these rights was faced with numerous obstacles. Unfortunately, the report did not provide such information in details neither did it cover all its aspects.

The other issue, Mr. President, is that the report referred to the international human rights conventions that were joined and ratified by Nigeria. However the Convention Against Torture and the Relief Protocol were not among the list. This leads to another question about torture. Are there guarantees, or to rephrase it, what are the guarantees that torture does not take place in prisons or in detention centres, especially in political cases and cases dealing with coup d'etates in the past few years?

Mr. President, as I previously mentioned, we only discuss these issues with the aim of enhancing co-operation, and understanding for the aim of attaining the stage of practical implementation of the rights stipulated in the Charter, as the stipulation on its own is not sufficient, and maybe meaningless when the reality is different. This is all I need to say at this stage and thank you Mr. President. I would also like to repeat my thanks to the representatives of Nigeria for attending with us today and presenting their report. Thank you Mr. President.

JANNEH:

I will simply a supplementary question, following on what Commissioner Buhedma had to say, and then ask the representative to answer or make comments on what has already been said, before we go a stage further. And this is it: if indeed there are cases of torture, can you give any examples of members of the armed forces or police, who have in fact been convicted of torture? I give you the floor.

DOWODU:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to constitutional provisions that has been suspended, according to one of the Commissioners which spoke, yes, there was a time when there were draconian laws, and it was part of military intervention, and in fact that was why there was the coup in 1985 by the present military administration, and they had to step in, because the situation was becoming very tense, and there were a lot of uncertainties, legal uncertainties, political uncertainties and so on.

So that was, it was at this time, and this was the background in which the present administration came in. At their inception, they looked at all those laws - the decrees that tend to remove certain rights, or give certain rights and remove them with the other hand. And they promulgated quite a number of decrees, I think I cited some, where certain sentences were reduced, sentences that was supposed to be a minimum were made maximum. This was when the present military administration came in. Certain constitutional provision that where made ineffective, invalid, ineffective, void and so on, they were brought back, and I would like to put on record that constitutional provisions with respect to the protection of human rights are still in force in Nigeria. They enforceable. Our law courts do apply them. In fact there are cases that are put in the reports where some rulings, declarations were made by the law courts. Stating, that certain executive acts were done, in violation of the citizen's human rights.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is, that these provisions, especially with respect to those that concern promotion, protection of human rights, they are very active in Nigeria, and they are not suspended.

Special tribunals in Nigeria have been used since the military intervention, and the reason for this is because our law courts, and I believe this is not a peculiar problem to Nigeria, the law courts are overcrowded. Being a developing nation, we do not have enough resources to man these law courts very well, in order to make for quicker expeditious dealing with the cases before them. And if we do not do anything, the cases will just pile, people will be detained, trials will not come on, and the laws of human rights provisions would invariably be violated.

Therefore the Government thought it the best and wise in the situation in which we have found ourselves, to establish these special tribunals. And these special tribunals, they were set up with statutory instruments, given terms of reference - what I mean by that, what they were to look into, I mean they were not general special tribunals, because side by side we still have the regular courts, and cases still go to the regular courts. But these special tribunals were for special, perhaps, circumstances, when a matter comes up and it had to be dealt with expeditiously, this tribunal will be settled.

The composition of this tribunal gives one the satisfaction that violation of human rights is not intended by any means at all, because you have a serving judge, who is a Chairman of the tribunal. Sometimes still you could have a retired judge. In fact you do have, the Supreme Court justices put as chairmen of the tribunal. Then we also have senior lawyers, practising lawyers, put to assist them. We do have, sometimes, military officers as members of the panel. They are there perhaps for their expertise in terms of facts, in respect of the matters before the tribunal. They are not supposed to be the judge. They assist, no doubt, but it is the judge in place, that actually dictates the procedure that is followed.

Before these tribunals there is the right to fair hearing, right to legal representation, and in this in respect too, in fact if the accused person can not afford to pay, there is a legal aid scheme, and we have lawyers that will be given to him, except if he does not want. These are practices that are being done and are encouraged.

Then the rulings, or the decisions of these tribunals; one will not see appellate provisions like we have for the regular courts, but we do have a system whereby the rulings, the decisions are subject to reviews. When the tribunal makes its pronouncements, the convicted persons, they have the right to make petitions, the right petitions, and even apart from that, if there are no petitions, as a result of the decision of the tribunals, there is the administrative process whereby such rulings are not confirmed. They are not confirmed, just because it has been made or such ruling has been delivered. It has to be placed before the council, we have the attorney general if it's a state matter, if it's a federal matter, invariably it still comes to the federal attorney general. He looks at the matter, he looks at the ruling and the trial, before there is confirmation of whatever ruling or decision has been given.

I would say that I do not understand what is meant by special courts, we have tribunals and we have courts, the regular courts. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if... Yes, I do not know what is meant by special courts... it is the tribunals, ok. I would like to say too that, I do not think this practise tribunals, the use of tribunals is peculiar to Nigeria alone.

JANNEH:

It is not considered that it is a good thing to have special tribunals anywhere in the world. That is the difference. To have a tribunal is one thing, to have a special tribunal is another thing.

DOWODU:

Perhaps having special tribunals it is just, Mr. Chairman, in the style of the title or something, it is not in the procedure that you do, or the function, or the intention behind certain of these tribunals. There is nothing really special about them, because I have not seen from the law setting them or the difference between just calling them tribunals and calling them special tribunals.

MOKAMA:

I think, if I may come in here, Mr. Chairman, just the word special, I think, refers to the subject matter. The Robbery and Firearm tribunal, it is special to that subject matter rather in special to the procedure. I think that is the way it deals.

JANNEH:

So the procedure you have for the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, it is the same as the procedure you have in the ordinary criminal courts. That is the point, actually.

MOKAMA:

Mr. Chairman I just want to say, when I referred to special courts or special tribunals, fairly strictly I was saying, courts which are not within the normal system, and remember the whole hierarchy of the Nigerian courts; the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the various customary courts, and then the high court, and then the magisters in the customary courts. Now, those are the normal courts, anything else - I call it special courts or special tribunals. That is really what I was talking about. And I was concerned that these special courts were in fact, they used to be outside what we see in the constitutional framework of the whole judicial of Nigeria. And I not so sure whether they give the same safeguards, the same protection of human rights as the normal courts.

That is really the question I was asking. But I was not going any further than that, I just wanted to hear a confirmation, because these courts, these special courts are viewed with suspicion. Why special - why not the normal courts? Is there anything secret - is there anything they do better than the normal courts? If in fact you are short of the judiciary, why set up special courts, why not increase the judges, Mr. Chairman, that was the question.

JANNEH:

Before you answer, could we give the floor to Commissioner Ben Salem.

BEN SALEM:

Merci Monsieur le Président, ce ne sont pas des questions que j'aimerais poser aux honorables représentants du Nigeria, mais c'est un complément à la question du commissaire Mokama. Je voudrais justement demander la clarification qui a été demandé par le commissaire Mokama. Pour moi, une cour, un tribunal spécial, ou comme on les appelle chez nous les cours d'exception, sont des cours qui ne figurent pas en principe dans les Constitutions des pays. Donc ce sont des cours qui sont mises en place par des ordonnances ou par des décrets qui émanent de l'exécutif et qui montrent que le pouvoir judiciaire à ce moment-là, est un pouvoir qui est entre les mains du pouvoir exécutif, et ceci est d'une grande importance, et cela est quelque chose qui me parait essentiel pour parler des tribunaux et des pouvoirs judiciaires d'une façon générale. Donc ce que l'on voudrait savoir, si il existe des tribunaux d'exception qui sont mis en place parallèlement au système judiciaire normal, prévu par la constitution du pays et, de qui sont composés ces tribunaux parce que vous avez parlé de la présence de militaires dans certains tribunaux. Moi, je peux vous assurer que, à partir du moment où les magistrats même dans le cas d'une assistance, à partir du moment où les magistrats deviennent des commandants, des colonels, des généraux etc., on ne peut plus parler de pouvoir judiciaire indépendant. Donc c'est la clarification que je voulais faire à la question posée par le commissaire Mokama. Merci.

JANNEH:

Yes Ms. Dowodu, I now give you the floor.

DOWODU:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the questions they raised: the tribunals, they are nothing special. The word special is just being used, but they really have nothing special. They are outside the regular courts, the normal courts, in the sense that they are provided for in view of the circumstances that we found ourselves. Like I said earlier on, speedy trial was one of the reasons why we felt we needed tribunals. To speedily look at the matters and dispense with them.

Secondly, in Nigeria at the time there were a lot of disturbances, a lot of things happening that were quite extraordinary, and there was the need to set up these tribunals in order to assist the regular courts. I mean by that: the regular court could not cope with the volume of matters that was to be dealt with. And so these tribunals were set up.

Also there was a need to deal with sudden matters with dispatch and with the regular courts, the process in the regular courts would not answer for that, so the tribunals were found as answers to these needs. The composition of the tribunals enhances fair trial in the sense that there's a serving judge who's knowledgeable in the law, the practice, the constitutional practice, and the provisions of human rights. He makes sure that all that needs to be done is done, with respect to legal representation, within the presentation of the matter before the tribunal.

It operates just like the ordinary court, if I may say that. Matters are presented just like in the ordinary court. You write, some answers are written out, you make your replies, addresses are given, examination, cross-examination, examination in chief - all those things that we do in the regular court, they are being done in tribunal. It is not as if the procedure is terribly different or is different.

The composition, yes: there is a serving judge, who is the Chairman of the tribunal, then you have senior members of the bar, lawyers, practising lawyers who are there. Like I said earlier, sometimes, and that was for certain tribunals, you could have a member of the armed forces, maybe an army officer or something being a member of the tribunal. And, yes, most times a lawyer too, maybe in a uniform, but it's a lawyer as a member of the tribunal. Then you would also have perhaps a layman or something being a member of the tribunal. That is the composition. And like I also said earlier, the Mr. Chairman is always the man in charge of the affairs. These other members, they really do not have a say as such to the proceedings before the tribunal. They are only there, they are assist as panel members, no doubt, but it is the judge that carries on the talking, the interrogations and things like that. They are just there. Perhaps for fact-finding.

The question was asked if the constitutional provisions on fair hearing and legal representation are being allowed, yes. I said that even where the accused persons cannot afford a lawyer, the legal aid comes in, and he is given a lawyer, because no trial would go on without legal representation. Even in these tribunals. Even sometimes when the lawyers are not there, the tribunal will not go on, except if the lawyer is there for the accused person, the tribunal will adjourn. Except if there is a legal representation they will not go on.

In that wise I do say that the constitutional provisions on fair trial, fair hearing, legal representations are quite in order and they are being maintained.

The right to defend, right to establish - no I do not know, maybe I should not go to that yet - the right to establish trade unions and so on, the right to form parties and associations - I want to go on to that now, I do not know...

JANNEH:

Commissioner Mokama has a problem first.

MOKAMA:

I appreciate that madam, I am impressed with the composition, the membership of the court, but could you just give me one answer relating to appeals procedure: what happens to any person aggrieved by the decision of that court? Does he have a right of appeal to the normal court, or is his appeal is prevented? Thank you.

DOWODU:

Within the tribunals, decisions by the tribunals, they do not follow the same pattern as in the normal courts, whereby there is the right to go to the court of appeal and things like that.

MOKAMA:

Are they final?

DOWODU:

No, they are not, I said it earlier, that the rulings and decisions are not final, even though they have been made, the pronouncements are made, what happens is that the accused person or the convicted person has a right to petition, and in spite of that even if he doesn't do that, the normal administrative process before confirmation of any decision, tribunal decision, is that such decision is placed before a council, that meets, the attorney general is there if it is a state matter, the attorney general of the state is present, the deputy is there, all the members of the council will be there, and then the governor of the state. And they look at the matter, they look at the precedence again, that is even without a petition, before the decision or the ruling is confirmed, or committed, whatever decision they decide to take on it.

There is the review process, yes, we have a review system whereby these rulings are looked at, are reviewed.

JANNEH:

Before you leave the floor, can you give three examples of these tribunals we are talking about, can you name three of them?

DOWODU:

We have the Armed Robbery tribunal, we have the Miscellaneous Offenses tribunal - Perhaps I should say something: these tribunals actually came into being when there were these, after the, most of them came after the Second Republic, the breakdown of the Second Republic, and the draconian laws came, and the laws of tribunals were just being set up to deal with matters that were coming up, a lot of armed robbery, there was a lot of things happening in the country at that time, armed robbery, and that was the time also that there were drug trafficking and things like that. And the government of that time felt that they needed something extra to cope with the volume of offenses emerging at that time.

That will be briefly a history of the tribunals, an introduction of these tribunals. And like I also said, we do have these tribunals set up for matters like the civil disturbances tribunals and so on, when there is a civil disturbance the government steps in, sets up the civil disturbance tribunal particularly for that matter.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Kisanga.

KISANGA:

I would just like to get it clear from the speaker that the ordinary court has no supervision at all over these tribunals - is that the position?

DOWODU:

Can you repeat the question, sir?

KISANGA:

You have told us, madam, that there is an appeal from these tribunals and these appeals go to a body of persons composed of, say, the attorney general, the governor, the deputy, etc. etc.. Now, there was no mention of a move to the high court or to the court of appeal or to the Supreme Court. I just want a reconfirmation that appeals from these tribunals are not, or rather, proceedings of these tribunals are not supervised by the ordinary courts. Is that the position?

DOWODU:

The proceedings are, because a serving judge is the Chairman, so that the Chairman, yes. If you talk about the proceedings, they are supervised by the Chairman who is also a serving judge. He might have been drawn from either the high court, drawn from the court of appeal, or from the Supreme Courts.

JANNEH:

The question is, whether you can appeal from a tribunal to the Court of Appeal of Nigeria.

DOWODU:

No.

JANNEH:

Very well, then, I think that's clear now. Very well, I must say I am very grateful -

DOWODU:

I would want to add here that it does not mean that things that are going on in the tribunal could, one could not sue - perhaps if there was a procedural that any of the lawyers attending the tribunal is dissatisfied with or does not believe to be the proper way they should go, concerning the legal practice, he could sue in regular court. He could sue in the regular court, concerning the practice or the procedural that is going on in the tribunal. That happens, he could sue. Even while the tribunal is going on, you could sue, and the matter can go on as high as to the Supreme Court. So I do not know if that will partly answer the question, I do not know.

JANNEH:

By that do you mean you could take the government of court by way of judicial review, mandamus, certiori, etc., is that what you are saying? What do you mean by "he could sue" in the regular courts?

DOWODU:

If there is a procedural that is going on, that he is not satisfied with, maybe he felt that a motion is this, or some pronouncements were made or he was not given the right to properly cross-examine or things like that - he could sue. He could sue and like go to court, file a motion...

JANNEH:

Against whom? Against the court?

DOWODU:

Against the tribunal.

JANNEH:

I see, hmm. Well, thank you very much for enlightening us on that particular aspect. By way of general comment I will tell you why many of us are extremely anxious, because the general thing about tribunals is, you set them up and give them their own peculiar rules of procedure, whereby you cut off what is termed to be technical technicalities. And in fact so-called technicalities are there to protect the litigant. With so many special tribunals we know, they attempt to cut off all the so-called technicalities and in the name of speed they tend to result in injustices, especially where there is no right of appeal to a higher, regular court. This is just by way of general comment, and we hope you will consider these things and make proper comparisons when next you deal with this particular question of special tribunals.

You may take the floor, Commissioner Kisanga.

KISANGA:

I think she still had something to say.

DOWODU:

Yes, the right to form parties, associations, I think it was raised, the trade union. The Constitution provides with such rights, and indeed and in fact such rights are being made us of, because people in Nigeria form trade unions, there is the liberty to form associations, free associations. There are no harassments as to that or hindrances put in their way. And specifically may I think the two political parties mentioned in the reports.

What happened and why it was so done, why two political parties were said to be the permissible parties in Nigeria now, is because hitherto to this time Nigerians were left to form parties and we had so many political parties. There were no objections, the governments never stepped in, but from my experience, it was found that these political parties did not actually address the objectives, the real issues of party formation, political associations.

Going back to the first civilian years, before independence, political parties were formed on religious, ethnic basis, it was a kind of sectional thing, and the real issues were not addressed. It was also the same thing during the Second Republic, and it took us nowhere. The attenders at the Third Republic were something like that, and I want it to be on record that we had so many political parties just before the intervention of the government. So many parties were formed. And the formation of these parties took us nowhere. As a matter of fact there where the requests from the citizens themselves, wanting the parties to be streamlined, because the manifestos were just here and there, the objectives could not be found...

[Gap]

KISANGA:

... before the Commission - along with that I would like to raise one small matter with them, and that is, that this report appears to have taken unduly long in preparing and presenting it. Mr. Chairman, that was the first attempt that was made in August 1990, but I should preface this by saying that, I am going with this question not in the form of a criticism, but I would like to find out in the way of dialogue, found out if there were any difficulties which could not be referred to us, and for which we might give advice. So, when I raise this question, I implore the delegation to view them not as a criticism, but as an honest way of establishing this dialogue and finding mutual help. If there were any difficulties, we would like to know - in case in future we might be able to find a way of knowing about those difficulties.

But Mr. Chairman, the first attempt was made in August 1990, and I remember on this particular occasion, the Commission was having the privilege of sitting in Lagos. Now there is where this first attempt was made, and the report was presented there, but there was no state representative to come and talk about it. Even though the Commission was seated right in Lagos. A small question that the Commission is posing is: considering Nigeria which is a big country with large, with big resources in terms of manpower, what could have happened? And from then on we have been sending invitations to a representative to come to present the report. Even last Commission meeting we had sent for a representative, but nobody turned up. All that we are asking for is: in case that there are problems faced by those preparing the report, we would wish to know in case we might be able to offer or suggest solutions.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn to the report as presented today, and I have only short and simple interventions. In fact, very elementary questions. Now, it appears from page two of the report that the 1989 Constitution has been suspended, and that the Constitution currently in force is the 1979 one, and the report farther shows that this suspension, this 1989 Constitution has been suspended until August 1993. Now, the simple questions I am raising, Mr. Chairman, are as follows: What were the circumstances which led to the suspension of the 1989 Constitution? Associated with that is the question: What are the prospects, that this August 1993 target will be met? In other words: how is it seen that those problems which led to suspension of the Constitution will be surmounted by August 1993?

Turning on page three, Mr. Chairman, the report shows, that the Constitution now in force, seeks to ensure independence impartiality, and integrity in of courts of law and easy accessibility to the people who come to it, in other words, the provision actually reads as follows: "the independence, impartiality, and integrity of courts of law and the accessibility thereto shall be secured and maintained." That is to say, assurance, in attempt to make sure of the independence, impartiality, integrity and accessibility to those courts, the simple questions that I want to pose are as follows: How accessible are the courts, and in this particular case I am talking of human rights enforcement and upholding of human rights. Those people who have grievances, how are the courts accessible to them?

In this regard I have in particular the following matters to take into account. It is noted from the paper that violations of human rights are actionable the only in high court, not in the courts below. Now, how easy is it for the ordinary man to come to the high court? I have noted, it is noted in the paper, that there are provisions for legal aid in respect of people who have grievances and who would like to find redress in the courts. The question is: how easy is it to get legal aid? I cannot - in fact one cannot say that one can get legal aid as is a matter of course. I do not think it will be possible in any country. But in fact, according to the paper, legislature is to make provisions of how to get legal aid, by that I understand to mean that a certain machinery et up to ensure that those who ask for legal aid are really in need of legal aid. My question is: how easy is it, how readily can someone, can a person get legal aid?

Closely connected with this is, it is a matter of general knowledge that in order for someone to be able to enforce their legal rights is imperative that they are aware of those legal rights, of those human rights. And the question is: how far is the ordinary public aware of their human rights, so that when these are violated, they can be aware of them and indicate them. I am having in mind in particular the people in the rural area. How far are they aware of their, what is the general knowledge of human rights?

If you wish, what is the degree of literacy, which is one of the elements which enables a person to be aware of their human rights. It is one way of making someone be aware of the guaranteed rights in the constitution. Because when these rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, it is one thing to guarantee them in the Constitution, but it is another if the population are aware of those rights. How far will the people generally know if these rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

Mr. Chairman, I think I should stop there for the time being. Thank you.

JANNEH:

Commissioner Beye, I give you the floor.

BEYE:

Je vous remercie beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais formuler 2 souhaits, je poserai ensuite 2 questions et je finirai par une petite observation. Mais auparavant, je voudrais m'associer à tous mes collègues qui ont tenu à remercier le Nigéria pour avoir produit son rapport, et la délégation pour être là aujourd'hui pour présenter ce rapport à la commission.

Le premier souhait, vous avez pu le constater, on a été un certain nombre à être obligatoirement discret puisque nous n'avons pas pu accéder à ce document, comme cela était le cas de nos collègues hier, à propos du Togo, parce que le document est seulement en anglais. Ce n'est pas un problème du Nigéria, parce que l'OUA a des langues de travail et doit veiller à produire le document dans ces langues de travail, mais malheureusement ce n'est pas le cas et mon souhait est le suivant, c'est de réitérer ici une suggestion faite par la Commission pour nous aider dans notre travail, prenant en compte l'impossibilité pour le moment pour l'OUA d'assurer la traduction des documents dans les langues de travail. Nous apprécions donc à l'avenir dans la limite de vos possibilités, en tout cas, cela sachez-le, va faciliter le travail de la commission, que le document vienne dans les langues de travail de l'OUA, en tout cas au moins en anglais et en français et peut-être en arabe aussi.

BEN SALEM:

Pour-quoi peut-être?

BEYE:

Car ce serait trop demander au Nigéria. Voilà le premier souhait. Vraiment ce serait souhaitable que nous puissions avoir le document en plusieurs versions, sinon nous ne pourrons pas apporter nos contributions, je n'ai pas pu lire votre document.

Le second souhait, c'est un appel que je voudrais formuler, ayant à faire à un pays comme le Nigéria, comme l'a dit mon collègue Mokama où le Président introduisant cette séance, la place que le Nigeria occupe en Afrique fait que, lorsque vous empruntez un direction, cela devient extrêmement important. C'est pour cela on se réjouit que vous ayez tenu à présenter votre rapport et que vous soyez venu pour soutenir votre rapport. Alors, j'en profite pour vous demander, pour lancer un appel au Nigéria. Que le Nigéria donne un exemple dans cet autre domaine, nous avons remarqué qu'avec le vent de démocratisation sur le continent, les nombreuses élections qui tendent à la transparence ont commencé, et souvent malheureusement l'Afrique a considéré que la seule manière d'assurer la transparence, pour que l'on applaudisse à la transparence, pour que l'on dise que les choses se soient bien passées, c'est lorsque l'on fait appel à des observateurs extra-africains. On fait appel au Commonwealth, on fait appel au président Carter, on fait appel à la CEE, au Parlement Européen, mais on ne fait appel à aucun organe africain et pourtant, l'Afrique s'est dotée d'une Commission Africaine des Droits de l'homme et des peuples. Je suis persuadé que le Nigéria que j'ai connu, le grand Nigéria, verra au moment de vos prochaines élections, vous veillerez à ce que, vous ferez en sorte à ce que ça soit un organisme africain, qui soit sinon l'observateur, au moins parmi les observateurs. C'était mon second souhait.

Maintenant deux questions. La première c'est, à quand le second rapport du Nigéria, vous savez que l'Article 62 de la Charte stipule que c'est tous les deux ans depuis la date de votre ratification, depuis l'entrée en vigueur, tous les deux ans vous êtes tenus à fournir un rapport périodique. Vous avez bien commencé, souhaitons qu'il n'y ait plus trop de décalage entre ce rapport et le prochain rapport, donc là aussi donnez l'exemple et je vous assure que ce sera d'un poids.

La seconde question a trait, je remercie mon collègue d'avoir posé les questions qui sont nos préoccupations habituelles, notamment à ce problème de réception du droit international en droit interne, la tournure de la réception de la Charte par le droit interne et nous nous réjouissons tous, que le Nigéria l'ait réglé de la façon la plus concrète par le biais de la constitution, mais il y a une autre préoccupation qui est permanente ici au niveau de la commission. Vous savez que l'Afrique a été fière, est fière de dire que la Charte Africaine est le premier traité de droit international qui stipule le droit au développement, qui consacre le droit au développement, c'est un concept qui a fait l'objet de plusieurs résolutions, de plusieurs recommandations, on connait leur valeur juridique, mais le premier document légal, le premier document juridique qui confère la juridicité à ce concept est incontestablement la Charte Africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples. Mais il ne faut pas que ce soit seulement une consécration formelle. Nous apprécierons et peut-être que la délégation pourrait nous en dire quelque chose. Comment comptez-vous donner un contenu concret à ce droit au développement qui, comme vous le savez, est un véritable droit de synthèse, comment comptez-vous faire en sorte qu'il puisse être mis en oeuvre?

Voilà, le sens de mon intervention. J'avais parlé d'une observation finale, je l'ai déjà faite, c'était pour me féliciter de ce problème qui a été réglé par nos amis du Nigéria, alors que le plus souvent dans les pays anglophones nous avions rencontré ce problème de la "?..?", de la réception en droit interne, le Nigéria semble avoir réglé dans sa constitution, donc nous avons bien pris note que les citoyens du Nigeria peuvent invoquer directement devant les tribunaux, la Charte Africaine des droits de l'Homme et des peuples qui est partie intégrante de l'ordonnancement juridique interne du Nigeria. Nous avons pris note et nous nous en félicitons, je vous remercie M. le Président.

JANNEH:

I have two announcements to make - first, we shall have to rise at a quarter past six, because this reception in this hotel in which we have been invited by the honourable Minister of Justice - the announcement was made before that all NGO representatives and all Commissioners are cordially invited.

The second announcement, is that those that have just presented their application for observer status must realise that we have gone beyond that item on our agenda. Those applications will not be considered until our next session. With that I give the floor to Commissioner Ben Salem.

BEN SALEM:

Merci M. le Président. Je voudrais évidemment me joindre à tous mes autres collègues pour remercier les honorables délégués du Nigéria, pour le rapport qu'ils nous ont présenté. Surtout en ce qui me concerne sur la forme du rapport. La forme didactique du rapport me parait assez intéressante à prendre comme exemple pour d'autres rapports, d'autres pays. Evidemment M. le Président, je me réserve sur le contenu de certaines dispositions de ce rapport et ce sont ces réserves qui vont me pousser à reposer les interrogations suivantes. D'abord, je commencerai par poser une question d'ordre général qui a été évoquée d'ailleurs par certains de mes collègues. Il s'agit bien sûr du silence de ce rapport sur l'évolution du processus démocratique au Nigéria. C'est donc ma première question d'ordre général.

Je poserai ensuite 2 questions précises: l'une concernant le rapport et l'autre concernant une information qui nous est parvenue. En ce qui concerne le rapport, l'article 4, section 36 de ce rapport dit que le Nigéria est un des pays les plus libres au monde en matière de presse or nous avons appris que très récemment, il y a à peine quelques semaines, 2 ou 3 semaines, des journaux plus ou moins importants ont été suspendus, je parle de "The news " et de "Reporter" ont été suspendus et leurs responsables y compris des journalistes ont été arrêtés et emprisonnés et sont encore en prison, sans jugement. Je profite d'ailleurs de parler des prisons pour saisir au passage la phrase qui a été dite par l'honorable délégué du Nigéria et qui, j'espère, dépasse un peu le sens de ce qu'elle a voulu dire, parce que parler d'un pays où beaucoup de prisons sont en cours de construction, cela veut dire qu'il y a des choses qui ne tournent pas rond. Donc, j'espère que c'est un problème de traduction. J'en excuse nos interprètes d'avance, mais je voudrais si possible qu'il y ait quelques explications sur les constructions de beaucoup de prisons au Nigéria et évidemment, je souhaiterais qu'un de ces jours, des membres de cette commission soient à même d'être invité par le gouvernement du Nigeria à visiter certaines prisons.

Voilà pour ce qui est de ma première question sur le rapport lui-même, ma seconde question concerne ce qui vient d'être affirmé le 8. decembre 1992 par l'inspecteur général de la police du Nigéria, qui a affirmé à la radio que la police nigériane, les forces de police du Nigéria ont sous leur contrôle, sous leur surveillance tous les groupes, toutes les organisations qui défendent les droits de l'homme. Voila donc ma seconde question qui concerne cette infor- mation que nous avons pu avoir par ailleurs.

Je terminerai, Monsieur le Président, par un souhait. J'ai dit beaucoup de bien de la forme du rapport, surtout à cause donc de sa forme didactique mais également parce que le rapport cite des affaires précises pour étayer certaines des affirmations qu'il présente. Je souhaiterais que, à l'avenir, le Nigéria et d'autres pays qui présenteront les rapports devant cette commission puissent par exemple nous parler d'affaires où la charte africaine des droits de l'homme est expressément citée, des décisions judiciaires, d'arrêt des tribunaux où il est fait référence en matière de défense des droits de l'homme à la charte africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples.

Voilà ce que je voulais demander Mr. le Président aux honorables délégués du Nigéria et je les remercie d'avance pour la réponse. Merci!

JANNEH:

Commissioner Nguema you have the floor.

NGUEMA:

Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président. Je pense que je n'ai pas à répéter les observations qui ont été faites par mes prédé-cesseurs, étant donné que nous n'avons pas eu le texte en francais, nous n'avons pas pu prendre connaissance intégralement de ce rapport. Ce n'est évidemment pas un point à mettre sur le compte de Nigéria, c'est notre Commission qui doit pouvoir se mettre au top niveau.

Cela dit, je crois que nous pouvons effectivement nous féliciter de la présence des représentants du Nigeria devant notre Commission. Comme on l'a dit tout à l'heure, ce rapport devait être présenté dès 1990 à notre session de Lagos. Cela n'a pas été le cas. Moi, j'en étais à désespérer et je croyais même que le Nigéria avait rompu les ponts avec la Commission. C'est donc dire que nous ne pouvons que nous féliciter de votre présence ici aujourd'hui, c'est une présence qui traduit naturellement la volonté de dialoguer avec notre Commission et je pense que cette volonté devra ?...? de telle sorte que les observations que nous allons peut-être faire ici, puissent être prises en compte par les autorités du Nigéria.

Cela dit, j'ai juste quelques questions, des observations à faire peut-être une question à la fin. Supposons que le parlement, je crains de parler de ce pays que j