CHAPTER
ONE
GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
1.0.0 Introduction
The origin of
"human rights" lies in the nature of human beings[1].
Human rights belong to every member of the human family. This is regardless of
sex, political opinion, race, socio-economic group, nationality, sexual
orientation, or any other status. They
are rights that are inherent to all human beings. Human rights are all
universal, interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible.[2]
They are universal because they apply to all people simply based on being
human. They are inalienable since a person seeking them does not take the
rights away to exercise their rights whether one likes them or not. They are
only limited in certain tightly defined circumstances and some rights, such as
the prohibition on torture and slavery are never limited.[3]
They are indivisible since one does not choose or handpick which rights they
want to honor or dishonor. Many rights depend on each other to be meaningful,
for example, the right to fair trial would be meaningless without the
prohibition on discrimination, and the right to free speech must go hand in
hand with the right to assemble peacefully.
1.1.0 Background to the Study
Indefinite detention
violates the constitution and bills of rights of most countries, as well as a
number of international treaties[4]. Norms, of course,
are subject to interpretation. The case-law provides concrete illustration and
further development of the codified norms.
In the context of the
“terrorism” some countries have adopted legislation allowing the indefinite
detention of terrorism suspects. Particularly worrisome are certain pieces of
legislation adopted in countries that are bound by the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, and the American Convention on Human Rights[5].
In the United
Kingdom the 11 Muslim detainees in the Belmarsh prison case, most of whom have
been held since December 2001, successfully challenged their indefinite
detention without trail and obtained a favourable ruling from the House of
Lords on 16 December 2004, which reversed the Court of Appeal finding of
October 2002 that indefinite detention was compatible with the United Kingdom’s
human rights obligations[6].
It is now up to the
British Parliament to repeal or modify Article 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act of 2001 (ATCSA), which the Lords have ruled to be incompatible
with the British Human Rights Act and with the European Convention on Human
Rights.
In particular,
the Lords found that indefinite detention and closed trails discriminates on
the grounds of nationality (Article 14 of the ECHR), because it applies only to
foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, notwithstanding a comparable threat
from terrorism suspects holding United Kingdom nationality.
Persons suspected of
terrorism in the United States have been similarly subjected to indefinite
detention and closed trails. More than
700 persons were held as terrorism suspects at the United States naval base in
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba[7].
In a number of early cases, several
federal district and circuit courts held that the United States Constitution
and the Bill of Rights did not apply to aliens detained in Guantánamo,
who
did not even have the right to habeas corpus. They were deemed to be in a
“legal black hole.” [8]
On 28 June 2004, by a
six to three judgment, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the
fiction of the legal black hole and held that the persons being held in
Guantánamo Bay are entitled to counsel and to challenge the legality of their
detention.[9] Persons deprived of their liberty are never
de jure in a black hole. In principle, they enjoy legal protection under at
least two legal regimes — municipal law and international human rights law. In
times of armed conflict, they are also entitled to the additional protection of
a third legal regime, that of international humanitarian law.
However, de facto
tens of thousands of persons throughout the world are subjected to indefinite
detention with closed trails, frequently incommunicado, and governments try to
justify such irregular imprisonment on the basis of “national security,”
“state of emergency,” “illegal migration” and other so-called extraordinary
circumstances. It is on this background that this study seeks to analyze the
human rights implication of the detention and closed trails of terrorists under
the Terrorism ACT 2013.
Visit www.researchshelf.com
for complete project materials, project topics, past examination questions and
answers, assignments, research proposals,
meet fellow students online, meet with lecturers and ask for help, read
and post news (Campus News). Registration is Free Of Charge (FOC).
Note also that our
mobile app will soon be launched where you can view all the above features on
your mobile devices and don’t forget to request for any material you need that
is not on our website through contact us page.
[1] Dakas C.J Dakas(2013), ‘’Nigeria’s Anti- Terrorism
Laws and Practices: The Imperative of Mainstreaming Human Rights into Counter- Terrorism
Administration, ncicc.org.ng
[2] Okorie Hagler(2014),’ Deconstructing The Terrorism
(Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013’ ABSUJL 4
[3] Okoronye
Innocent , Terrorism in International Law, (Whytem Publisher 2013) 7
.
[4] Omotola S John(2003).
’Combating international Terrorism’ 29 NJIA 12, 284
[5] Ogbu O Nna
(2009)., Human Rights Law & Practice in Nigeria: An Introduction, (
CIDJAP Press,) 358.
[6] Utume, D
Alfred. ‘International Terrorism: What Policy options for its control’
(2005)NIIA 31.
[7] Banjo Williams
(2008) ‘Terrorism: A Short Overview’;19 NIIA 11, 12
[8] Juliet Luck,
(2001) Terrorism: A Challenge to the State ( 1st edn, Oxford)
[9] Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment