Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORTS OF NIGERIA
16 August 2005
Share
Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
16 August 2005
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the fourteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Nigeria on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Abdul Bin Rimdap, Ambassador and Director of the International Organizations Department at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, said the Government had provided the enabling environment and even encouragement for free expression of views by individuals as well as by organizations, including the press and human rights defenders. While it was true that Nigeria had acceded to the Convention in 1993, and had, as yet, not domesticated it, due cognisance should be taken of the historical circumstances responsible for this situation. Nigeria had been under successive military Governments for the most part of its existence as an independent country, which had in most cases compromised respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria, realistic steps were being taken to redress the situation.
In preliminary remarks, Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for the reports, said the acknowledgement of the lateness of the periodic reports was appreciated, and the Committee looked forward to more efforts being made for more diligent reporting in the future and the delegation’s promise to this effect. The most intriguing issue was the issue of national unity, as all were committed to creating countries with national unity out of histories that had fragmented society. Nigeria made this sound very easy, and as though everything was equal. The challenges presented to the State party were many, and the Committee was very committed to supporting it in the efforts it was making to make Nigeria a more united country, but it hoped and requested that next time more information would be given about real difficulties experienced in making the wonderful vibrant country that was Nigeria truly meaningful in the African continent.
During the discussion, which lasted over two meetings, Mr. Bin Rimdap said among other things that Nigeria acknowledged the importance of a periodic report being provided to the Committee as and when it was due, and had therefore taken serious note of the concerns raised in order to ensure prompt dialogue with the Committee in the future. It would also endeavour to give more detailed answers to some of the issues raised. By the Constitution of Nigeria, all citizens, whether or not they belonged to ethnic minority groups, had equal rights. Specifically, the Constitution prohibited discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of ethnicity, culture, language, religion or belief. There was no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the socio-economic activities in Nigeria.
Committee Experts also raised such questions and issues on the use of force by military and security forces, particularly in the context of persistent allegations that this was perpetrated against certain ethnic groups; what measures the Government was taking to respond to ethnic-related issues that would undoubtedly cause conflict if action was not taken; issues related to the application of Islamic Sharia law; whether any complaints of racial discrimination had ever been presented to official bodies and how they had been dealt with; and that many questions raised in response to previous reports had not been responded to in subsequent reports, and that therefore Nigeria’s reports did not fully address the questions, advice and recommendations made by the Committee.
The Committee will present its concluding remarks on the reports of Nigeria towards the end of the session, which will end on 19 August 2005.
Also in the delegation were representatives of the Nigerian Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Federal Character Commission.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be held at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 August to discuss treaty body reform.
Country Reports
The fourteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Nigeria (CERD/C/476/Add.3) state that Nigeria has been submitting its reports as a signatory and party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since its inception in 1963. Nigeria does not operate any State policy that promotes, encourages or tolerates any type of discrimination. Although there are upheavals which tend to have an ethnic or religious colouration, the nation does not really have a religious crisis as Nigeria is a secular or multi-religious society. The country has never witnessed any cultural interference from any federal or State government nor has it been dominated by any ethnic group as a matter of policy.
With the coming into operation of the democratic administration in 1999, Nigerians have exercised their rights as citizens in electing a national government by universal suffrage. The Government has subsequently focused on strengthening the democratic system in the context of social stability and respect for human rights. This has registered remarkable progress in the development of the country. The Government will not relent in its efforts to discourage privileges, discrimination and poverty, and it will encourage development in peace-building and guaranteeing the rights of its citizens.
Nigeria is not experiencing any syndrome of contemporary (or any other form of) racial discrimination or of discrimination against ethnic, religious or cultural minorities. However, there have been inter- and intra-ethnic clashes between various groups in Nigeria mainly involving commercial interests and resource control, but definitely not for the reason of being a member of a particular ethnic minority or religious group. The State of Nigeria has continued to fulfil its obligations under article 2 of the Convention by not engaging in any act or practice of racial discrimination against persons or institutions and by upholding the enforcement of fundamental human rights entrenched in the Constitution. These fundamental human rights are uniform and apply to all citizens of Nigeria. Respect for equality is recognized and promoted.
Introduction of Reports
ABDUL BIN RIMDAP, Ambassador and Director of the International Organizations Department at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, introducing the reports, said the delegation was aware of the importance the Committee attached to the implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and was open to receive reports from all quarters including Governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, and individuals with the aim of promoting and protecting human rights world-wide. Indeed, Nigeria had provided the enabling environment and even encouragement for free expression of views by individuals as well as by organizations, including the press and human rights defenders. While it was true that Nigeria had acceded to the Convention in 1993, and had, as yet, not domesticated it, due cognisance should be taken of the historical circumstances responsible for this situation. Nigeria had been under successive military Governments for the most part of its existence as an independent country, which had in most cases compromised respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
However, since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria, realistic steps were being taken to redress the situation, he said. Under chapter four of the Constitution, the right to freedom from discrimination was guaranteed to every citizen. The Constitution was still a document in evolution. The historical circumstances surrounding the emergence of this text needed to be appreciated to understand why the situation was thus. Following the sudden demise of the last but one military Head of State, the succeeding leadership convened a constitutional conference to write a new constitution as part of the resolve of that administration to hand over power to a democratically-elected Government in the shortest possible time. The outcome of this conference was a draft text which was extensively tinkered with by the military leadership before its promulgation into law. Today, Nigeria had a constitution whose imperfections were both numerous and obvious.
Since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria in 1999, there had been calls for the amendment of several provisions of the Constitution. There were practical steps therefore being taken by the Government to further enhance the sense of belonging to the Nigerian nation, free from discrimination of any kind. Foreigners resident in Nigeria also had their rights protected like all other citizens living in Nigeria. Foreigners in Nigeria had always enjoyed their fundamental freedoms, including against discrimination of any kind, and they enjoyed more privileges and preferential treatment at times than the locals, and this was probably why no single foreigner had ever had cause to seek redress in any court of law for the violation of their right to freedom.
The non-justiciability of incidental rights arising from residence rights of every citizen in all parts of the country such as the right to work, to give fulfilment to the right to residence was directly linked to its status as a developing country whose economy could not, as yet, support the full enforcement of such rights. As a federal state it was not even possible for the justiciable rights to be enforced or implemented due to the concurrent or non-concurrent legislative lists of responsibilities. The Government was however aware of its obligations to its citizens to strive to make life meaningful, and would continue to do so within the limits imposed by available human and material resources.
Nigeria was a country comprising about 250 ethnic groups. It was also diverse in other ways such as in culture and religion. Some people had sought to draw attention to perceived discrimination in the allocation of political power, especially as personified in the office of the president, to their geographical zone. Since the return of democracy, the issue of zoning prominent political offices, including of the presidency, had gained prominence and acceptability. This was in recognition of the catalytic role this could play in ensuring equity, fair play, and remove marginalisation and discrimination.
Efforts would be made to render further reports as and when they were due, and Nigeria hoped that it would continue to improve on its reports as it looked forward to being availed of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.
Discussion
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was pleased it had been able to resume the dialogue with Nigeria, as this was an encouraging sign, especially in the current situation in the world where there were numerous opportunities for improving the situation of human rights and many risks threatening to derail the progress made by Governments in promoting human rights. Nigeria remained a fascinating country on the African continent. It was a populous and energetic country that had a resilience that could do wonders for the continent as a whole. The role it was playing in various African peace initiatives was commendable. There was renewed respect for the country, and much progress had been made within its borders in reversing some of the negative legacy left by various military Governments.
Unfortunately, the reports had missed the opportunity to inform the Committee of the successes achieved in the last ten years, and also fell short of exploring the most fascinating aspects of the population, as well as various dynamics including regional and economic ones. They skirted issues, and offered a rather shallow analysis of the multi-faceted dimensions of Nigerian society, in particular the aspects of implementation of the Convention. Very little was said about how the reports were compiled and coordinated, and who was or was not consulted. Reference was made to the Government’s efforts to encourage the establishment of civil society groups to promote many interests; it appeared there had been very little consultation outside the Government. The reports created an opportunity for dialogue which should not be neglected, as it had in other cases added great value.
Mrs. January-Bardill said the reports led the Committee to conclude that there appeared to be insufficient monitoring of the levels of promotion, protection, and implementation of human rights at many levels of society. The Committee had therefore had to use many other official and unofficial sources, including shadow reports offered by international and Nigerian non-governmental organizations, country reports to other treaty bodies, studies and others. It was hoped this would be received in a positive spirit, as the Government realised that the probing was in order to increase the value of the dialogue. Some issues that were not dealt with in the written answers caused concern, and these included the status of the Convention within law, in particular what was the situation regarding its domestication; the definition of discrimination, as the reports stated that Nigeria was not suffering from any form of this phenomenon, despite reports to the contrary, including discrimination against members of a social caste and against foreigners; the work of the institutions listed in the reports; issues linked to the declaration with regard to article 14 of the Convention and whether the country had any intention of making this; how initiatives, such as the goal of national unity, were working, and what progress they had made; how the national census would be conducted and whether language would be used as a marker, and whether the Government would not reconsider its decision not to collect ethnic data; poverty alleviation programmes and how they were implemented; whether unemployment data was collated with regard to ethnicity; and legislative and judicial frameworks for the implementation of the Convention.
Mrs. January-Bardill said the reports said little about many factors, which hindered the explanation of the situation, including economic factors, all of which could contribute to exacerbating ethnic tenses and causing clashes. With respect to a question on the use of the army in the restoration of law and order, the Committee wished to know whether the reports of arbitrary arrest, violence and torture by Nigerian police, complaints of arrests and detention without trial could be elaborated on by the delegation. How did the Government reconcile the many allegations of heavy-handedness of the law enforcement agencies, she asked. The reports did not mention descent-based discrimination, and said the Osu-caste system was abolished, and that such practices were no longer practiced, and this had struck the Country Rapporteur, who said the general sense was that despite constitutional guarantees, it was difficult to obtain human rights for those implicated in the Osu-caste system. The State of Nigeria was urged to involve itself in this issue, and to take drastic measures to protect the rights of those in communities who suffered from caste-based discrimination. She also noted that it was commendable that Nigeria was able to offer free education at the primary and secondary level, and tuition-free teaching at the tertiary level.
Other Committee Experts also raised various issues and topics, among other things saying that the implementation of the Convention was not just important to the population of Nigeria and the Committee, but also to Africa as a whole. They asked about the use of force by military and security forces, particularly in the context of persistent allegations that this was perpetrated against certain ethnic groups; the alleged marginalisation of certain ethnic minorities; issues related to the caste system, which had been legally outlawed many years ago although it remained a feature of customary practice in several areas, including what the Government was doing to eradicate it and eliminate its consequences; what measures the Government was taking to respond to ethnic-related issues that would undoubtedly cause conflict if action was not taken; issues linked to the National Commission on Human Rights and what was its composition, functions and activities, as well as how it coordinated with the unit that investigated human rights violations; issues related to the application of Islamic Sharia law; whether any complaints of racial discrimination had ever been presented to official bodies and how they had been dealt with; and that many questions raised in response to previous reports had not been responded to in subsequent reports, and that therefore Nigeria’s reports did not fully address the questions, advice and recommendations made by the Committee.
Experts also reminded the delegation that the absence of any complaints of racial discrimination was not necessarily a good thing, as it could be due to a lack of information regarding rights, or fear of reprisals from society, or from fear of the law enforcement agencies, or to a lack of sensibilisation with regard to possibilities for redress.
Response by Delegation
Responding, Mr. Bin Rimdap said further information about the Osu-caste would be given by another member of the delegation. On issues of indigenous peoples, every Nigerian was indigenous, and thus the concept did not apply. It was only in terms of movement and trading that there was an intermingling of groups.
Nigeria acknowledged the importance of a periodic report being provided to the Committee as and when it was due, and had therefore taken serious note of the concerns raised in order to ensure prompt dialogue with the Committee in the future. Mr. Bin Rimdap said it would also endeavour to give more detailed answers to some of the issues raised. The Committee was assured that in future civil society would be involved in the reports, which would be much more comprehensive.
The Nigerian census and statistics had been an issue regarding which the Government was worried that data sorted by ethnicity, tribe, culture and religious groups would distort the accurate population of the country, which could cause instability. Since the Civil War in the 1960s, the Government had devised means of creating a sense of belonging for all Nigerians in its quest for nation-building. This was done through the creation of states and local Governments, in order to involve ethnic groups in governance at the federal, state and local Governments. Therefore, census figures for different ethnic groups were discouraged but not suppressed. Because population figures had also been used for planning political and revenue allocations, the Government was concerned about their accuracy and therefore emphasised the residency and location of people.
All Nigerians were indigenous to the country, Mr. Bin Rimdap said. On the amalgamation of the North and Southern Protectorates by the British in 1914, many nationalities were put together as Nigerians, and they were all indigenous. The issue of discrimination against indigenous peoples in Nigeria did not arise. The reference to “environmental racism” made by the Rapporteur with regard to health hazards for indigenous people was not clear to Nigeria. Environmental degradation in Nigeria, especially in mining areas, desertification and erosion were all of serious concern to Nigeria.
By the Constitution of Nigeria, all citizens, whether or not they belonged to ethnic minority groups, had equal rights. Specifically, the Constitution prohibited discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of ethnicity, culture, language, religion or belief. All Nigerians belonged to specific communities, and as such, there was no special indigenous group in the country.
The question of high-handedness by police and military personnel was condemnable by the Government, which had not condoned any act of lawlessness by the police or the army on unarmed civilians in the country. The few cases that had been mentioned were not ethnically based, but were a result of the Government’s efforts to quell intra- and inter-ethnic crisis. Ethnic militias had become sophisticated due to the influx of small arms and light weapons used for criminal activities and armed robberies. Many policemen had also been killed by these militias. The action of the Government in using military personnel as a last resort had not targeted any ethnic group. Recruitment into the armed forces, police, and other security forces was distributed equitably among the states of the Federation, and was not based on ethnic or religious criteria.
There was no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the socio-economic activities in Nigeria. Every ethnic minority, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, belonged to a State as well as to a local Government; as such, the three-tiers system of Government provided opportunities for them as enshrined in the Constitution, and enforced by the Federal Character Commission.
JOSEPH U. AYALOGU, Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Committee seemed to be putting an undue emphasis on the issue of the Osu-Caste system in Nigeria, and this appeared to be born out of a lack of full understanding of what it was, and it was therefore pertinent to enlighten the Committee. It was a practice that had existed for centuries past, and a concept based on the belief that the traditional deities were higher than the ordinary citizen, and the Osu were persons dedicated to the service of traditional deities. Consequently, they were treated with high respect as a Special People closer to the deity of the Society, and in that situation enjoyed some privileges, but were not actually denigrated, which was the situation prior to the introduction of Christianity in the area. Nobody married them except fellow Osu, as they were regarded as higher than the ordinary people. However, with the advent of Christianity, modernisation, western education, and the formal abrogation of the practice some forty years ago, such practices died out, and it was no longer in existence in the area. He urged that this matter be struck off the list in consequence, as it was no longer relevant.
The Government had not domesticated the Convention in its statutes book, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, but it was considering doing so with the Anti-Discrimination Bill, currently before the National Assembly for consideration. The National Reform Conference also addressed all issues, including international treaties and their application in Nigeria.
Action taken to address the problems of vulnerable groups in the area of education included Special Schools, such as Nomadic Education among the cattle-rearing and fishing communities. There was also a quota system and catchments policy in admission to colleges and universities, which gave preference to students of surrounding localities. Poor socio-economic status of Nigerians cut across all States of the country, and was not confined to a particular ethnic group or society.
Due to the socio-economic crises in the country, many people were displaced, but the Government had taken action to resettle them with full rights to education, health, and other facilities. Furthermore, a Presidential Committee on IDPs had been instituted to come up with suitable Government policies. The Committee had concluded its work, and had made recommendations to the Government, as well as calling on the international community to accord IDPs international recognition, as it did for refugees. On the rights of non-citizens, the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 stipulated the right to dignity of human persons in Nigeria, which implied the right to non-citizens as well. By this, the Nigerian Constitution went further than many countries in the world, by providing rights to non-citizens.
The issue of trafficking in human beings was being taken seriously by Nigeria, which had established a National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons to address the issue. The main problem was to tackle the demand and supply of trafficked persons. The European Union had assisted ECOWAS countries to address this subject, which was caused basically by poverty.
Nigeria, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, had three types of courts, according to the Federal System of Government, including the common-law courts, customary courts, and the Sharia Court. All of them had rights of appeal up to the Supreme Court, and they all dated from before independence. People were not forced to use the Sharia court - it was a matter of choice.
The 74 Unity Schools established by the Federal Government were a symbolic model to emphasise the need for National Unity. Education was under concurrent legislative list in the Constitution. The Federal Government, States and local Governments provided education at various levels from primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. There were many schools provided by them in the country. Also missionaries, private individuals, and other interest groups provided educational opportunities at various levels. In line with constitutional requirements, all States provided free primary and secondary education to their people without discrimination. Adult education was also provided to those who needed it.
The claim of excessive use of force, extortion and impunity by the police in Nigeria was mentioned by Experts, the delegation said. This image of the police was a universal phenomenon, and Nigeria was not an exception. The Government was aware of the consequences of this in the area of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had embarked on reforms and training of the security forces including training in best police practices and human rights, facilitation of welfare, and advocacy of police/civilian relations.
The quality of the reports to the various human rights treaty bodies was affected by many factors such as a lack of facilities, technical know-how and advisory services. There was the need therefore for capacity building in order to adequately address the issue of periodic reports of the various treaty bodies to which Nigeria was a state party. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had conducted a project formulation visit to Nigeria, and identified various areas of need. The Office was unable to provide the needed assistance due to inadequate resources.
The Government of Nigeria wished, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, to assure the Committee that further efforts would be undertaken to ensure the general principles of the Convention were integrated into the development, programmes and implementation of projects in Nigeria. Also, despite inadequacies in budgeting, monitoring and evaluation in the implementation process of the core rights guaranteed in the Convention, the Government was willing to discharge its obligations through principal legislative, administrative and policy measures, programmes and institutional infrastructure that would be put in place in the realisation of these objectives.
Committee Experts then asked further questions and made comments on various issues, including that the replies given had not all been developed along the lines which the Members of the Committee might wish; that the delegation had not sufficiently stressed the crucial issue of construction of people as a unit of Nation-hood in the context of a Nation State; whether the delegation could confirm that even in States where the majority of the population was Muslim, a culprit could choose between being judged in the common-law court or the Sharia court; what happened if a person was brought to court before a customary court or a Sharia court and wanted to be tried before common-law, and how administration chose between the different jurisdictions in this situation; a request for an ethnic breakdown in the military and the Federal police and security forces; and issues linked to what had been termed as “environmental racism”. An Expert also thanked the delegation for providing an ethnic breakdown of political office holders, as this had been found useful.
Responding briefly to these issues and questions, Mr. Bin Rimdap said regarding the issue of fragmenting of African societies, Nigeria was created hurriedly in 1914 when different nation States were put together, and a considerable effort had therefore been made to create a Nation, and the Government had worked to bring people together and to unify the country, and this was one of its cardinal principles. Regarding the caste system, it was an issue which was linked to prejudices at a local level, and did not impede anybody from enjoying their rights such as that to education. Sharia was allowed to operate only among those who were Muslims. In the case of a criminal case, the choice was allowed as to which Court would judge it, and if in the case of a case brought by a Muslim against a non-Muslim, the Sharia court could not judge it. There had been no case where a foreigner had complained that his or her rights had been violated, as the Constitution protected their rights by implication.
Preliminary Remarks
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur, in concluding remarks, said the Committee was sincerely grateful for the responses to all the questions posed. The acknowledgement of the lateness of the periodic reports was appreciated, and the Committee looked forward to more efforts being made for more diligent reporting in the future and the delegation’s promise to this effect. There were a number of issues which could continue to be discussed, including the disaggregation of data; a refining of the term indigenous peoples in order to apply more closely to the situation in Nigeria and how indigenousness was related there to States and local authorities; “environmental racism”, which was used in a situation where a multinational company applied a double standard of exploitation, doing what they would not do in their own countries with the connivance of the Government, such as was the case in the Niger Delta area; the Ecological Fund and how the rights of the Ogoni people were protected; and the heavy-handedness of police in dealing with conflict, and how human rights were protected in this context.
The most intriguing issue for Ms. January-Bardill was the issue of national unity, as all were committed to creating countries with national unity out of histories that had fragmented society. Nigeria made this sound very easy, and as though everything was equal. Bringing people together was hard work, but in doing so by creating mechanisms, social engineering and other factors, there was always a risk, and Ms. January-Bardill asked how these were taken into account. It was also true that there were majority and minority groups in Nigeria that were defined very clearly in Nigerian literature, and she asked what, in an attempt to bring the country together, what had worked and what hadn’t, and who controlled the funding for Federal Programmes aimed at enhancing unity.
The caste system would, she said, always be a matter that the Committee would raise, although it acknowledged that the State party viewed it in a particular way, but the Committee could not entirely ignore it, as it could be that the Government had dealt with it in a formal sense, but the people had not changed their perceptions and practices. While there was a Constitution to protect the rights of all citizens, legal and administrative instruments needed to be more specific so as to put these provisions into effect.
The resumption of the dialogue had opened doors for more conversations between the State party and the Committee. The challenges presented to the State party were many, and Ms. January-Bardill said the Committee was very committed to supporting it in the efforts it was making to make Nigeria a more united country, but it hoped and requested that next time more information be given about real difficulties experienced in making the wonderful vibrant country that was Nigeria truly meaningful in the African continent.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
of Racial Discrimination
16 August 2005
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the fourteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Nigeria on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Abdul Bin Rimdap, Ambassador and Director of the International Organizations Department at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, said the Government had provided the enabling environment and even encouragement for free expression of views by individuals as well as by organizations, including the press and human rights defenders. While it was true that Nigeria had acceded to the Convention in 1993, and had, as yet, not domesticated it, due cognisance should be taken of the historical circumstances responsible for this situation. Nigeria had been under successive military Governments for the most part of its existence as an independent country, which had in most cases compromised respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria, realistic steps were being taken to redress the situation.
In preliminary remarks, Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for the reports, said the acknowledgement of the lateness of the periodic reports was appreciated, and the Committee looked forward to more efforts being made for more diligent reporting in the future and the delegation’s promise to this effect. The most intriguing issue was the issue of national unity, as all were committed to creating countries with national unity out of histories that had fragmented society. Nigeria made this sound very easy, and as though everything was equal. The challenges presented to the State party were many, and the Committee was very committed to supporting it in the efforts it was making to make Nigeria a more united country, but it hoped and requested that next time more information would be given about real difficulties experienced in making the wonderful vibrant country that was Nigeria truly meaningful in the African continent.
During the discussion, which lasted over two meetings, Mr. Bin Rimdap said among other things that Nigeria acknowledged the importance of a periodic report being provided to the Committee as and when it was due, and had therefore taken serious note of the concerns raised in order to ensure prompt dialogue with the Committee in the future. It would also endeavour to give more detailed answers to some of the issues raised. By the Constitution of Nigeria, all citizens, whether or not they belonged to ethnic minority groups, had equal rights. Specifically, the Constitution prohibited discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of ethnicity, culture, language, religion or belief. There was no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the socio-economic activities in Nigeria.
Committee Experts also raised such questions and issues on the use of force by military and security forces, particularly in the context of persistent allegations that this was perpetrated against certain ethnic groups; what measures the Government was taking to respond to ethnic-related issues that would undoubtedly cause conflict if action was not taken; issues related to the application of Islamic Sharia law; whether any complaints of racial discrimination had ever been presented to official bodies and how they had been dealt with; and that many questions raised in response to previous reports had not been responded to in subsequent reports, and that therefore Nigeria’s reports did not fully address the questions, advice and recommendations made by the Committee.
The Committee will present its concluding remarks on the reports of Nigeria towards the end of the session, which will end on 19 August 2005.
Also in the delegation were representatives of the Nigerian Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, and the Federal Character Commission.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be held at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 August to discuss treaty body reform.
Country Reports
The fourteenth to eighteenth periodic reports of Nigeria (CERD/C/476/Add.3) state that Nigeria has been submitting its reports as a signatory and party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since its inception in 1963. Nigeria does not operate any State policy that promotes, encourages or tolerates any type of discrimination. Although there are upheavals which tend to have an ethnic or religious colouration, the nation does not really have a religious crisis as Nigeria is a secular or multi-religious society. The country has never witnessed any cultural interference from any federal or State government nor has it been dominated by any ethnic group as a matter of policy.
With the coming into operation of the democratic administration in 1999, Nigerians have exercised their rights as citizens in electing a national government by universal suffrage. The Government has subsequently focused on strengthening the democratic system in the context of social stability and respect for human rights. This has registered remarkable progress in the development of the country. The Government will not relent in its efforts to discourage privileges, discrimination and poverty, and it will encourage development in peace-building and guaranteeing the rights of its citizens.
Nigeria is not experiencing any syndrome of contemporary (or any other form of) racial discrimination or of discrimination against ethnic, religious or cultural minorities. However, there have been inter- and intra-ethnic clashes between various groups in Nigeria mainly involving commercial interests and resource control, but definitely not for the reason of being a member of a particular ethnic minority or religious group. The State of Nigeria has continued to fulfil its obligations under article 2 of the Convention by not engaging in any act or practice of racial discrimination against persons or institutions and by upholding the enforcement of fundamental human rights entrenched in the Constitution. These fundamental human rights are uniform and apply to all citizens of Nigeria. Respect for equality is recognized and promoted.
Introduction of Reports
ABDUL BIN RIMDAP, Ambassador and Director of the International Organizations Department at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, introducing the reports, said the delegation was aware of the importance the Committee attached to the implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and was open to receive reports from all quarters including Governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, and individuals with the aim of promoting and protecting human rights world-wide. Indeed, Nigeria had provided the enabling environment and even encouragement for free expression of views by individuals as well as by organizations, including the press and human rights defenders. While it was true that Nigeria had acceded to the Convention in 1993, and had, as yet, not domesticated it, due cognisance should be taken of the historical circumstances responsible for this situation. Nigeria had been under successive military Governments for the most part of its existence as an independent country, which had in most cases compromised respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
However, since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria, realistic steps were being taken to redress the situation, he said. Under chapter four of the Constitution, the right to freedom from discrimination was guaranteed to every citizen. The Constitution was still a document in evolution. The historical circumstances surrounding the emergence of this text needed to be appreciated to understand why the situation was thus. Following the sudden demise of the last but one military Head of State, the succeeding leadership convened a constitutional conference to write a new constitution as part of the resolve of that administration to hand over power to a democratically-elected Government in the shortest possible time. The outcome of this conference was a draft text which was extensively tinkered with by the military leadership before its promulgation into law. Today, Nigeria had a constitution whose imperfections were both numerous and obvious.
Since the return of democratic governance to Nigeria in 1999, there had been calls for the amendment of several provisions of the Constitution. There were practical steps therefore being taken by the Government to further enhance the sense of belonging to the Nigerian nation, free from discrimination of any kind. Foreigners resident in Nigeria also had their rights protected like all other citizens living in Nigeria. Foreigners in Nigeria had always enjoyed their fundamental freedoms, including against discrimination of any kind, and they enjoyed more privileges and preferential treatment at times than the locals, and this was probably why no single foreigner had ever had cause to seek redress in any court of law for the violation of their right to freedom.
The non-justiciability of incidental rights arising from residence rights of every citizen in all parts of the country such as the right to work, to give fulfilment to the right to residence was directly linked to its status as a developing country whose economy could not, as yet, support the full enforcement of such rights. As a federal state it was not even possible for the justiciable rights to be enforced or implemented due to the concurrent or non-concurrent legislative lists of responsibilities. The Government was however aware of its obligations to its citizens to strive to make life meaningful, and would continue to do so within the limits imposed by available human and material resources.
Nigeria was a country comprising about 250 ethnic groups. It was also diverse in other ways such as in culture and religion. Some people had sought to draw attention to perceived discrimination in the allocation of political power, especially as personified in the office of the president, to their geographical zone. Since the return of democracy, the issue of zoning prominent political offices, including of the presidency, had gained prominence and acceptability. This was in recognition of the catalytic role this could play in ensuring equity, fair play, and remove marginalisation and discrimination.
Efforts would be made to render further reports as and when they were due, and Nigeria hoped that it would continue to improve on its reports as it looked forward to being availed of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.
Discussion
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was pleased it had been able to resume the dialogue with Nigeria, as this was an encouraging sign, especially in the current situation in the world where there were numerous opportunities for improving the situation of human rights and many risks threatening to derail the progress made by Governments in promoting human rights. Nigeria remained a fascinating country on the African continent. It was a populous and energetic country that had a resilience that could do wonders for the continent as a whole. The role it was playing in various African peace initiatives was commendable. There was renewed respect for the country, and much progress had been made within its borders in reversing some of the negative legacy left by various military Governments.
Unfortunately, the reports had missed the opportunity to inform the Committee of the successes achieved in the last ten years, and also fell short of exploring the most fascinating aspects of the population, as well as various dynamics including regional and economic ones. They skirted issues, and offered a rather shallow analysis of the multi-faceted dimensions of Nigerian society, in particular the aspects of implementation of the Convention. Very little was said about how the reports were compiled and coordinated, and who was or was not consulted. Reference was made to the Government’s efforts to encourage the establishment of civil society groups to promote many interests; it appeared there had been very little consultation outside the Government. The reports created an opportunity for dialogue which should not be neglected, as it had in other cases added great value.
Mrs. January-Bardill said the reports led the Committee to conclude that there appeared to be insufficient monitoring of the levels of promotion, protection, and implementation of human rights at many levels of society. The Committee had therefore had to use many other official and unofficial sources, including shadow reports offered by international and Nigerian non-governmental organizations, country reports to other treaty bodies, studies and others. It was hoped this would be received in a positive spirit, as the Government realised that the probing was in order to increase the value of the dialogue. Some issues that were not dealt with in the written answers caused concern, and these included the status of the Convention within law, in particular what was the situation regarding its domestication; the definition of discrimination, as the reports stated that Nigeria was not suffering from any form of this phenomenon, despite reports to the contrary, including discrimination against members of a social caste and against foreigners; the work of the institutions listed in the reports; issues linked to the declaration with regard to article 14 of the Convention and whether the country had any intention of making this; how initiatives, such as the goal of national unity, were working, and what progress they had made; how the national census would be conducted and whether language would be used as a marker, and whether the Government would not reconsider its decision not to collect ethnic data; poverty alleviation programmes and how they were implemented; whether unemployment data was collated with regard to ethnicity; and legislative and judicial frameworks for the implementation of the Convention.
Mrs. January-Bardill said the reports said little about many factors, which hindered the explanation of the situation, including economic factors, all of which could contribute to exacerbating ethnic tenses and causing clashes. With respect to a question on the use of the army in the restoration of law and order, the Committee wished to know whether the reports of arbitrary arrest, violence and torture by Nigerian police, complaints of arrests and detention without trial could be elaborated on by the delegation. How did the Government reconcile the many allegations of heavy-handedness of the law enforcement agencies, she asked. The reports did not mention descent-based discrimination, and said the Osu-caste system was abolished, and that such practices were no longer practiced, and this had struck the Country Rapporteur, who said the general sense was that despite constitutional guarantees, it was difficult to obtain human rights for those implicated in the Osu-caste system. The State of Nigeria was urged to involve itself in this issue, and to take drastic measures to protect the rights of those in communities who suffered from caste-based discrimination. She also noted that it was commendable that Nigeria was able to offer free education at the primary and secondary level, and tuition-free teaching at the tertiary level.
Other Committee Experts also raised various issues and topics, among other things saying that the implementation of the Convention was not just important to the population of Nigeria and the Committee, but also to Africa as a whole. They asked about the use of force by military and security forces, particularly in the context of persistent allegations that this was perpetrated against certain ethnic groups; the alleged marginalisation of certain ethnic minorities; issues related to the caste system, which had been legally outlawed many years ago although it remained a feature of customary practice in several areas, including what the Government was doing to eradicate it and eliminate its consequences; what measures the Government was taking to respond to ethnic-related issues that would undoubtedly cause conflict if action was not taken; issues linked to the National Commission on Human Rights and what was its composition, functions and activities, as well as how it coordinated with the unit that investigated human rights violations; issues related to the application of Islamic Sharia law; whether any complaints of racial discrimination had ever been presented to official bodies and how they had been dealt with; and that many questions raised in response to previous reports had not been responded to in subsequent reports, and that therefore Nigeria’s reports did not fully address the questions, advice and recommendations made by the Committee.
Experts also reminded the delegation that the absence of any complaints of racial discrimination was not necessarily a good thing, as it could be due to a lack of information regarding rights, or fear of reprisals from society, or from fear of the law enforcement agencies, or to a lack of sensibilisation with regard to possibilities for redress.
Response by Delegation
Responding, Mr. Bin Rimdap said further information about the Osu-caste would be given by another member of the delegation. On issues of indigenous peoples, every Nigerian was indigenous, and thus the concept did not apply. It was only in terms of movement and trading that there was an intermingling of groups.
Nigeria acknowledged the importance of a periodic report being provided to the Committee as and when it was due, and had therefore taken serious note of the concerns raised in order to ensure prompt dialogue with the Committee in the future. Mr. Bin Rimdap said it would also endeavour to give more detailed answers to some of the issues raised. The Committee was assured that in future civil society would be involved in the reports, which would be much more comprehensive.
The Nigerian census and statistics had been an issue regarding which the Government was worried that data sorted by ethnicity, tribe, culture and religious groups would distort the accurate population of the country, which could cause instability. Since the Civil War in the 1960s, the Government had devised means of creating a sense of belonging for all Nigerians in its quest for nation-building. This was done through the creation of states and local Governments, in order to involve ethnic groups in governance at the federal, state and local Governments. Therefore, census figures for different ethnic groups were discouraged but not suppressed. Because population figures had also been used for planning political and revenue allocations, the Government was concerned about their accuracy and therefore emphasised the residency and location of people.
All Nigerians were indigenous to the country, Mr. Bin Rimdap said. On the amalgamation of the North and Southern Protectorates by the British in 1914, many nationalities were put together as Nigerians, and they were all indigenous. The issue of discrimination against indigenous peoples in Nigeria did not arise. The reference to “environmental racism” made by the Rapporteur with regard to health hazards for indigenous people was not clear to Nigeria. Environmental degradation in Nigeria, especially in mining areas, desertification and erosion were all of serious concern to Nigeria.
By the Constitution of Nigeria, all citizens, whether or not they belonged to ethnic minority groups, had equal rights. Specifically, the Constitution prohibited discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of ethnicity, culture, language, religion or belief. All Nigerians belonged to specific communities, and as such, there was no special indigenous group in the country.
The question of high-handedness by police and military personnel was condemnable by the Government, which had not condoned any act of lawlessness by the police or the army on unarmed civilians in the country. The few cases that had been mentioned were not ethnically based, but were a result of the Government’s efforts to quell intra- and inter-ethnic crisis. Ethnic militias had become sophisticated due to the influx of small arms and light weapons used for criminal activities and armed robberies. Many policemen had also been killed by these militias. The action of the Government in using military personnel as a last resort had not targeted any ethnic group. Recruitment into the armed forces, police, and other security forces was distributed equitably among the states of the Federation, and was not based on ethnic or religious criteria.
There was no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the socio-economic activities in Nigeria. Every ethnic minority, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, belonged to a State as well as to a local Government; as such, the three-tiers system of Government provided opportunities for them as enshrined in the Constitution, and enforced by the Federal Character Commission.
JOSEPH U. AYALOGU, Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Committee seemed to be putting an undue emphasis on the issue of the Osu-Caste system in Nigeria, and this appeared to be born out of a lack of full understanding of what it was, and it was therefore pertinent to enlighten the Committee. It was a practice that had existed for centuries past, and a concept based on the belief that the traditional deities were higher than the ordinary citizen, and the Osu were persons dedicated to the service of traditional deities. Consequently, they were treated with high respect as a Special People closer to the deity of the Society, and in that situation enjoyed some privileges, but were not actually denigrated, which was the situation prior to the introduction of Christianity in the area. Nobody married them except fellow Osu, as they were regarded as higher than the ordinary people. However, with the advent of Christianity, modernisation, western education, and the formal abrogation of the practice some forty years ago, such practices died out, and it was no longer in existence in the area. He urged that this matter be struck off the list in consequence, as it was no longer relevant.
The Government had not domesticated the Convention in its statutes book, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, but it was considering doing so with the Anti-Discrimination Bill, currently before the National Assembly for consideration. The National Reform Conference also addressed all issues, including international treaties and their application in Nigeria.
Action taken to address the problems of vulnerable groups in the area of education included Special Schools, such as Nomadic Education among the cattle-rearing and fishing communities. There was also a quota system and catchments policy in admission to colleges and universities, which gave preference to students of surrounding localities. Poor socio-economic status of Nigerians cut across all States of the country, and was not confined to a particular ethnic group or society.
Due to the socio-economic crises in the country, many people were displaced, but the Government had taken action to resettle them with full rights to education, health, and other facilities. Furthermore, a Presidential Committee on IDPs had been instituted to come up with suitable Government policies. The Committee had concluded its work, and had made recommendations to the Government, as well as calling on the international community to accord IDPs international recognition, as it did for refugees. On the rights of non-citizens, the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 stipulated the right to dignity of human persons in Nigeria, which implied the right to non-citizens as well. By this, the Nigerian Constitution went further than many countries in the world, by providing rights to non-citizens.
The issue of trafficking in human beings was being taken seriously by Nigeria, which had established a National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons to address the issue. The main problem was to tackle the demand and supply of trafficked persons. The European Union had assisted ECOWAS countries to address this subject, which was caused basically by poverty.
Nigeria, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, had three types of courts, according to the Federal System of Government, including the common-law courts, customary courts, and the Sharia Court. All of them had rights of appeal up to the Supreme Court, and they all dated from before independence. People were not forced to use the Sharia court - it was a matter of choice.
The 74 Unity Schools established by the Federal Government were a symbolic model to emphasise the need for National Unity. Education was under concurrent legislative list in the Constitution. The Federal Government, States and local Governments provided education at various levels from primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. There were many schools provided by them in the country. Also missionaries, private individuals, and other interest groups provided educational opportunities at various levels. In line with constitutional requirements, all States provided free primary and secondary education to their people without discrimination. Adult education was also provided to those who needed it.
The claim of excessive use of force, extortion and impunity by the police in Nigeria was mentioned by Experts, the delegation said. This image of the police was a universal phenomenon, and Nigeria was not an exception. The Government was aware of the consequences of this in the area of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had embarked on reforms and training of the security forces including training in best police practices and human rights, facilitation of welfare, and advocacy of police/civilian relations.
The quality of the reports to the various human rights treaty bodies was affected by many factors such as a lack of facilities, technical know-how and advisory services. There was the need therefore for capacity building in order to adequately address the issue of periodic reports of the various treaty bodies to which Nigeria was a state party. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had conducted a project formulation visit to Nigeria, and identified various areas of need. The Office was unable to provide the needed assistance due to inadequate resources.
The Government of Nigeria wished, Mr. Bin Rimdap said, to assure the Committee that further efforts would be undertaken to ensure the general principles of the Convention were integrated into the development, programmes and implementation of projects in Nigeria. Also, despite inadequacies in budgeting, monitoring and evaluation in the implementation process of the core rights guaranteed in the Convention, the Government was willing to discharge its obligations through principal legislative, administrative and policy measures, programmes and institutional infrastructure that would be put in place in the realisation of these objectives.
Committee Experts then asked further questions and made comments on various issues, including that the replies given had not all been developed along the lines which the Members of the Committee might wish; that the delegation had not sufficiently stressed the crucial issue of construction of people as a unit of Nation-hood in the context of a Nation State; whether the delegation could confirm that even in States where the majority of the population was Muslim, a culprit could choose between being judged in the common-law court or the Sharia court; what happened if a person was brought to court before a customary court or a Sharia court and wanted to be tried before common-law, and how administration chose between the different jurisdictions in this situation; a request for an ethnic breakdown in the military and the Federal police and security forces; and issues linked to what had been termed as “environmental racism”. An Expert also thanked the delegation for providing an ethnic breakdown of political office holders, as this had been found useful.
Responding briefly to these issues and questions, Mr. Bin Rimdap said regarding the issue of fragmenting of African societies, Nigeria was created hurriedly in 1914 when different nation States were put together, and a considerable effort had therefore been made to create a Nation, and the Government had worked to bring people together and to unify the country, and this was one of its cardinal principles. Regarding the caste system, it was an issue which was linked to prejudices at a local level, and did not impede anybody from enjoying their rights such as that to education. Sharia was allowed to operate only among those who were Muslims. In the case of a criminal case, the choice was allowed as to which Court would judge it, and if in the case of a case brought by a Muslim against a non-Muslim, the Sharia court could not judge it. There had been no case where a foreigner had complained that his or her rights had been violated, as the Constitution protected their rights by implication.
Preliminary Remarks
PATRICIA NOZIPHO JANUARY-BARDILL, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur, in concluding remarks, said the Committee was sincerely grateful for the responses to all the questions posed. The acknowledgement of the lateness of the periodic reports was appreciated, and the Committee looked forward to more efforts being made for more diligent reporting in the future and the delegation’s promise to this effect. There were a number of issues which could continue to be discussed, including the disaggregation of data; a refining of the term indigenous peoples in order to apply more closely to the situation in Nigeria and how indigenousness was related there to States and local authorities; “environmental racism”, which was used in a situation where a multinational company applied a double standard of exploitation, doing what they would not do in their own countries with the connivance of the Government, such as was the case in the Niger Delta area; the Ecological Fund and how the rights of the Ogoni people were protected; and the heavy-handedness of police in dealing with conflict, and how human rights were protected in this context.
The most intriguing issue for Ms. January-Bardill was the issue of national unity, as all were committed to creating countries with national unity out of histories that had fragmented society. Nigeria made this sound very easy, and as though everything was equal. Bringing people together was hard work, but in doing so by creating mechanisms, social engineering and other factors, there was always a risk, and Ms. January-Bardill asked how these were taken into account. It was also true that there were majority and minority groups in Nigeria that were defined very clearly in Nigerian literature, and she asked what, in an attempt to bring the country together, what had worked and what hadn’t, and who controlled the funding for Federal Programmes aimed at enhancing unity.
The caste system would, she said, always be a matter that the Committee would raise, although it acknowledged that the State party viewed it in a particular way, but the Committee could not entirely ignore it, as it could be that the Government had dealt with it in a formal sense, but the people had not changed their perceptions and practices. While there was a Constitution to protect the rights of all citizens, legal and administrative instruments needed to be more specific so as to put these provisions into effect.
The resumption of the dialogue had opened doors for more conversations between the State party and the Committee. The challenges presented to the State party were many, and Ms. January-Bardill said the Committee was very committed to supporting it in the efforts it was making to make Nigeria a more united country, but it hoped and requested that next time more information be given about real difficulties experienced in making the wonderful vibrant country that was Nigeria truly meaningful in the African continent.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: