INTRODUCTION
The inaugural part of this piece was necessarily foundational: it defined
‘human rights’; ‘economic social and cultural rights’ and also reviewed
historical assault on economic rights by military juntas in Nigeria. Today we
continue same theme after which we shall delve into social and cultural
rights and equally examine their justiciability. Enjoy.
ASSAULT ON ECONOMIC RIGHTS BY MILITARY JUNTAS (continues)
The opaque commercialization and privatization of economic policies that
were originally introduced by successive military regimes in Nigeria were
later to be fully and absolutely incorporated and implemented in the
scheme of things by the Obasanjo administration from 1999-2007. For
example, the Obasanjo administration illegally privatized NNPC, NITEL,
NEPA, Federal Hotels, strategic public institutions and other public
corporations, without necessarily following due process as is required
under a constitutional democracy. This privatization and commercialization
exercise was done with the ulterior motive of satisfying the whims and
caprices of a certain cabal of politicians at the expense of the vast majority
of the masses. The commanding heights of our National economy were
privatized to friends, relations, school mates, surrogates and lackeys of
Government officials and their compradors.
SOCIAL RIGHTS
These include right to quality education, right to security of employment,
access to free medical care, right to drink clean pipe-borne water, right to
electricity, right to information, right to good roads, right to good shelter and
clothing, etc. These are also known as basic social amenities, which are
necessarily incidental to decent and reasonable existence. We are already
in the 21 st century where a serious global campaign is on going for mass
literacy. This campaign for good and qualitative education is predicated on
the well known truism that education leads to development in all its
ramifications.
Page 2 of 5
Has the Nigerian Government done enough in the area of fundamentals of
the importance of education? The answer in good conscience is a capital
“No”. Since the days of “Ali-must-go protests (1978), education has
suffered tremendously as a result of its commercialization, thus making it
an exclusive preserve of the rich. The then National union of Nigerian
Students (NUNS), under the leadership of late Mr. Segun Oni
demonstrated its abhorrence for this and strenuously protested against the
commercialization of education by the then Commissioner for Education,
Amadu Ali. Unfortunately, however, this noble struggle of Nigeria Students
led to indiscriminate shooting, maiming and killing of innocent and harmless
students who were essentially the sons and daughters of the poor. All
Federal Universities were promptly closed down following the mass
protests. These tragedies occurred during the inglorious days of the military
dictatorship of Obasanjo. That was perhaps the first time when Nigerian
students signposted their determination to assert their inalienable right to
education. Till date, education is still in shambles as all successive military
and civilian Administrations have done little or nothing to improve it. While
the children of the rich and people in Government attend Ivy league
schools both locally and in foreign countries, the mass majority of children
of the poor receive half-baked education in half completed buildings,
without writing or learning materials.
In fact, since the evolution of Nigeria as a country and indeed since the
attainment of political independence, no government has sincerely
attempted the convocation of an Education Summit where all
stakeholders are permitted to contribute intellectually to the production of a
blue print for sustainable quality education that will meet our yearnings and
aspirations as a rapidly developing African Country. It is an indisputable
fact that without quality education, life will be of no avail and consequently,
development will be retarded.
Another epochal struggle of the later National Association of Nigerian
Students (NANS), for improved living standard and conditions in tertiary
institutions was the 1990 agitation for the provision of the most basic needs
on campuses, essentials such as pipe – borne water, electricity and
laboratory equipment just to enhance quality education. The response of
the then Babangida Military Junita was a far cry from the legitimate
demands of the students. Between March/April, 1990, the Federal
Government decided to take an IMF loan of $120m for the Federal
Universities and this unilateral and retrogressive decision triggered off
Page 3 of 5
violent protests and agitation from the academic community. The National
Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and Academic Staff Union of
Universities (ASUU), actively protested against the decision to take loan
from the world Bank, essentially because the conditionalities attached
thereto would worsen the already crisis – ridden educational situation in the
country. Not less than three Federal Universities were closed down
following the massive protests that greeted the decision to take the said
IMF loan. Some students of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – Ife,
were arrested and arraigned before an Ile – Ife Magistrate Court for
charges of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. The then
Education Minister, Prof. Babs Aliyu Fafunwa, while trying to justify the
essence of the loan stated that it was meant for the restoration of the
universities, but this explanation was not acceptable to Nigerian Students
as well as the Academic Staff Union of Universities, who that knew the loan
would further deny Nigerians a right of access to the already collapsed
educational system. All these were the by-products of SAP, an anti-people
program that was initiated by General Babangida’s Military regime.
CULTURAL RIGHTS
Culture has been defined by Bairamian J. in Lewis vs. Bankole, as a
mirror of accepted usage. It is a way of life of people, which has gained
acceptance among them over the years. The great sage, Chief Obafemi
Awolowo of blessed memory, once said that:
“Culture is the tap root of every society and if culture
decays, that society will have to develop parasitic features
for it to continue to exist”.
Cultural heritage has many aspects. For example, cultural songs and
dance, cultural foods, cultural traditional marriage, cultural dresses and
festivals. Nigerian’s multi-ethnic groups presuppose the existence of
cultural pluralism. This means that as there are many different ethnic
groups, so also there are different and diverse cultures in Nigeria. It is
therefore necessary to preserve and promote cultural rights among the
various ethnic Nationalities in Nigeria, so as to enable Nigerians participate
actively in their cultural life. This would also foster our philosophy of
national integration and diversity. An examination of the Nigerian Society in
the pre-colonial era will reveal how well preserved, promoted and
Page 4 of 5
respected our cultural heritage was by all the paramount traditional rulers of
the time. For example, the Benin Empire during the reign of Oba
Overamwen Nogbaisi earned continental applause as a result of the Oba’s
dedication and commitment to the promotion and preservation of the Benin
cultural heritage. The Oyo Empire under the Alaafin of Oyo was also feared
and respected by all and sundry for its commitment to the preservation of
their cultural heritage. The Hausa/Fulani struggled for decades for the
preservation and promotion of their cultural heritage. This was copiously
acknowledged by all British Colonial Administrators in Nigeria during the
colonial era.
JUSTICEABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS
Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999, as amended made copious provisions for Fundamental Objectives
and Directive Principles of State Policy. Sections 13 – 24 of the constitution
are basically on such all important issues and matters like fundamental
obligations of the Government, the Government and the people, politics,
economic, social, educational, foreign policy, environmental objectives,
directives on Nigerian culture, obligations of mass media, National ethnic
and duties of the citizens. Section 16 (1) – (4) of the constitution deals
essentially with economic objectives, while section 17 (1) – (3) deals with
social objectives; and section 21 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides for directives of Nigerian culture.
A cursory look at the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,
as altered, quickly reveals that the Government, gave these rights and
privileges with the left hand, and took them back with the right hand. This is
akin to the proverbial Greek gift. It is submitted with respect that, the non-
justificiability of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of
State Policy under the 1999 Constitution appears to be a conspiracy by the
state and its preferred minions to deny the Nigerian citizens, particularly the
masses, the enjoyment of their well deserved wealth by many public
officers and Government functionaries. A careful consideration of the diary
of looting in Nigeria will reveal how public officers in connivance with
elected political office holders have embezzled and mismanaged public
funds meant for provision of infrastructural facilities and other
developmental projects. But since the 1999 constitution as imposed by
themselves and their military collaborators has prohibited any person from
Page 5 of 5
challenging or seeking to enforce the Fundamental Objectives and
Directive Principles of State Policy, the looting or siphoning of public funds
will continue with impunity and the perpetrators will always find an escape
route. The average Nigerian continues to wallow in abject penury. The
recent revelations of looted billions of naira constitute and eye – opener to
this tragedy.
We must encourage and promote the enforcement of all the Fundamental
Objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy as they are meant to
enhance the living standard of all and sundry.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in
which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others”. –
Jonathan Sacks.