Players in the Criminal Justice Sector gathered in Lagos last week to review the draft rules for the implementation of the Anti-Torture Act more than two years after it was signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari on December 29, 2017, ADEBISI ONANUGA reports
STAKEHOLDERS in the Criminal Justice Sector gathered in Lagos for a two-day capacity building workshop last week to promote awareness of the Anti-Torture Act 2017, the Violence Against Persons Prohibition (VAPP) Act 2015, the review of the draft rules for the implementation of the Anti-Torture Act and the Lagos Domestic Violence Law 2007.
Participants also carried out a review of the Lagos State Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Law 2007.
The workshop was part of an Access to Justice project aimed at improving civic awareness of and implementation of the Anti-Torture Act 2017 (“ATA Act”).
The Act came into being in furtherance of the administration’s commitment to the promotion and protection of Nigerians’ fundamental human rights as contained in the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The Act is also aimed at improving the country’s criminal justice system.
The participants were drawn from the public sector and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as the Ministry of Justice, Legal Aid Council, Office of Public Defenders (OPD), the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) from the five judicial divisions in the state and the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ).
Others are the Rule of Law and Anti-corruption (RoLAC), International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), Access to Justice, Vision Spring Initiative, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Criminal Justice Network of Nigeria (CJNN) and the National Agency for Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP), among others.
Access to Justice Project Director, Deji Ajare described the VAPP Act 2015 and reforms it introduced to Nigeria’s legal landscape as “interesting innovation”.
Ajare observed that it was difficult to debate rape in the past, but that the emergence of the act had made it possible to do that today.
He noted that unlike in the past, anal rape is now an offence under the act. He said a man who fails to provide means of sustenance for his wife and children will be committing an offence under the VAPP Act.
He said the Act also criminalised ejection of a spouse from the house while it put an end to spouse battery.
According to Ajare, any law inconsistent with the provisions of the VAPP Act is null and void. He also pointed out that it is an offence if any person attempts to frustrate investigation of an offence.
He said the law provides for the creation of a sexual offenders register where anybody that has been convicted will have his details recorded in it to shame such a person.
The Director, Vision Spring Initiative, Dr (Mrs) Ngozi Nwosu-Juba, led the review of the Domestic Violence Act of Lagos State 2007.
She identified domestic violence as any violent act carried out against one’s spouse, neighbours or other persons, intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault and other abusive behaviours, being part of a systemic pattern of power and control perpetuated by one’s intimate partner against another, as in the case of a husband and wife.
Nwosu-Juba also listed such to include physical assault like beating and slapping and economic abuse like emotional, verbal and psychological abuse.
She said data by National Demographic Survey revealed that more than one in every four women, 28 per cent and 21 per cent of women and men respectively agree that a husband is justified on beating women.
She explained that reliefs available to a survivor under the law include assistance by the police or relevant authority, shelter, medical report, arrest without warrant, issuance of protection order while she listed reforms to include an expansion of the law to include dereliction of domestic violence, economic abuse, provision of family support unit, human right officers that deals with complaints at police stations.
Nwosu-Juba listed the loopholes in the law to include the reluctance of police to take cases of domestic violence when there are serious cases like armed robbery, lack of adequate punishment for suspects, no specific remedies for abused persons among others.
She said the usual practice had been that the Police characteristically, exhibit bias and discriminatory attitudes in their treatment of female victims of domestic violence and that this was informed by cultural beliefs and notions which devalue and subjugate women while some police officers often perceived domestic violence as family matter and poor response from criminal justice system.
According to her, it is also uncommon for women family members refusing to testify in court, frequent adjournments, delays and lack of awareness of the law.
For the act to be effective, participants agreed on the need to review the marital laws of Lagos State.
A mandatory reporter, Abdulwasiu Esuola suggested the need for the creation of a special police team dedicated as response team to Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (DSVRT), instead of the present arrangement of issuing letters to the Divisional Police Officers (DPO) of the nearest station where the offence was committed, who sometimes, on behalf of suspect may be seeking settlement between suspect and victim.
Participants also suggested a review of the law to provide sanction for a police officer who refused to take appropriate action when rape cases are reported but chose to molest victim; a form of compensation for victims of rape under restorative justice system and punishment for suspects; counselling therapy for rape victims; sanction for those who engage in second victimization of the victim.
They complained that punishments under the law are not severe enough to mitigate rape and suggested more severe punishment like life imprisonment. More importantly, creation of more awareness of the activities of the DSVRT laws to educate the public through radio jingles produced in different languages.
Mr Nathaniel Ngwu, a Director of the Criminal Justice Network of Nigeria (CJNN) who spoke on “Implementing Rules and Regulations of Anti-Torture Act 2017 (IRR) blamed lawyers for not using the act to seek justice for torture victims in spite of various provisions which made it an offence for security agencies to torture suspects.
Ngwu regretted that lawyers are always in a rush to file fundamental human rights suits instead of under the Anti-Torture Act. He said once established that a suspect has been tortured, the member of the security agency involve is liable under the law once convicted by the court.
He said in any suit filed under the Anti-Torture Act, the preamble, which stated, “An Act to penalize the acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and prescribe penalties for such acts; and for related matters”, is very fundamental for such suites and should always be cited.
He noted that that under the law, there is no justification for any member of the security agencies to inflict any form of torture on any suspect or subject a suspect to any form of degradation including, “beating, kicking; they are what we see law enforcement officers do every day on the streets and police stations”.
The Act, he explained, also provided no exceptional cases under which any suspect must be tortured.
He regretted that security agencies get away with it because hardly are suits filed against them by victims as most people are either illiterates or are not knowledgeable about the law.
Ngwu stated for instance that Section 2 of the act listed the responsibilities of government, and section 4 defines and listed what constitutes torture while section 6 guaranteed freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Furthermore, a state of war or threats of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency are no justification for torture under the act.
He said while confession or admission obtained from a suspect by means of torture is inadmissible as evidence against that person, such information, confession or admission may be admitted against such person accused of torture.
According to him, those who can file complaints in court include victims, an interested party on behalf of the victim or the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
to a maximum of about 25 years as a principal like DPOs, IGP, superior military, police or any law enforcement officer or senior government official who used his position to inflict torture on a person or procure any security official to torture a person among others. He said all other laws inconsistent with the Act are repealed and modified.
Sharing experience during open discussion session, Ajare told the story of a promising relation tortured to death by the Police, he narrated how the victim was arrested at a relaxation joint alongside his friends and was tortured till he gave up the ghost.
He alleged that the police did everything to cover up the act and labelled the deceased first as a gun runner and later an armed robbery suspect.
Ajare said it was another suspect who knew the deceased that leaked to his family how he was tortured till he died. He said as a result of the role he is playing in the matter, his life was threatened while they had to relocate to another town, the other person who exposed the torture. The matter is on trial before an Abuja High Court.
Olusegun Sojirin of NBA Ikorodu also cited the case of a suspect that almost died as a result of torture meted to him at Ikorodu Police station, but for his intervention by calling the attention of the DPO to what his officers were doing without his knowledge. He said the suspected was arrested in Ibadan, brought to Ikorodu and detained for eight days without any offence being brought against him.
On how to ensure effective implementation of the Anti-Torture Act and VAPP, participants made various suggestions to perfect the Act. For instance, they agreed that the words “severe torture” in the act be amended to read simply “torture” to remove all ambiguity.
On what constitutes acts of torture, participants agreed that Section 4 (a) (5) be amended and to remove the words. “… until the brink of suffocation.”; that the word, “… essential..” be removed from Section 4 (a) (8) as they considered every part of the body as essential part; that Section 4 (a) (12) be amended to delete the words “…point of asphyxiation”.
On consent for medication for a female in custody, Mrs Felicia Aigbogun-Brai of Rights Enforcement and Public Law Centre (REPLACE), leaning on the fact that most gynaecologists are male doctors said the burden should be put on the medical institution instead on the victim and suggests training for medical personnel in this area.
They also agreed on Section 5 of the act that the words: “…refers to a deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment…” be amended to read “…refers to an aggravated treatment or punishment…” among other suggestion made to ensure its usefulness and effectiveness.
Most importantly, participants agreed on the need for the National Human Rights Commission to oversee the implementation of the Anti-Torture Act and for the Committee that drew it to monitor and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Leave a Reply