By Ngozi Victoria Iheuwa
Abuja May 14th, 2013: the Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan had declared a State of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states after series of deadly attacks by Islamist Militant groups. The last few months had been the worst time in Nigeria, as the harvest of deaths has troubled Nigerians in ways that flashed back to the frightening days of the civil war. War, for any reason, is a terrible thing. Nigerians are caught up in an orgy of death and destruction which questions the efficacy of the state, as it is presently constituted. The city of Maiduguri had been under siege, where the Islamist Militant group; Boko Haram is based and it has waged a violent insurgency to create an Islamic state since 2009.
It is based on this backdrop, that the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Goodluck Jonathan took the bold step in the right direction to declare a state of emergency in the three states of the North East Nigeria.
What does the state of emergency mean? A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviour, or order government agencies to implement emergencies' preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms even if guaranteed under the constitution. In some countries, the states of emergency and its effects on human rights and freedoms and governmental procedures are regulated by the constitution and/or a law that limits the power that may be invoked. Rights and freedoms may be suspended during an emergency; for instance, freedom of movement, etc.
Furthermore, President Jonathan was right to invoke Section 305, subsection 1of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria in taking the decision for declaring the emergency rule to curb insurgency and terrorism in the affected states. However, their rules (Armed Forces) of engagement must be clearly spelt out in conformity with the very high standards of International Human rights law. The constitutionalism of human rights in the operative of the Nigerian Armed Forces would not only be required, but must be seen as a matter of utmost urgency. Most importantly, the Armed Forces should respect the rules of civil engagement in its operation to avoid violation of human rights.
Subsequently, the action of the Presidency was imperative for the unity of the Country and protection of its integrity. It is the right to curtail the rate of wanton destruction of lives and properties that had gone on, unabated in the North. There is need to find a lasting peace which our society deserves, because terrorism and insurgency had cost the country billions of naira.
Moreover, the fact that Governors and political structure, remained in the affected states was commendable. And the affected Governors should not hinder security operations; rather they should see it as an opportunity to offer necessary support. The state of insecurity in the country has reached a level where it should not be handled with kid's gloves.
In conclusion, there is no gainsaying that the responsibility of any responsive government is to ensure the protection and defence of its citizens at all costs.
Ngozi Victoria Iheuwa is Information Officer and she subscribed this piece from the National Press Centre.Via: Federal Ministry of Information (FMI) Nigeria