Critical Review of the Rights of the Displaced Persons in the Course of Natural Disasters in Nigeria
CHAPTER ONE
Objectives of the Study
The main aim of this study is to analyse the right of IDPs in situations of natural disasters in Nigeria with a view to making recommendations that would protect and enhanced the rights of the IDPs in various camps across the country. The research aimed to achieve this through the following specific objectives:
- To assess the adequacy of the existing national and international legal regime in the protection of IDPs in Nigeria.
- To identify the challenges militating against the smooth implementation of the rights of protection of persons in situations of natural disasters.
- To analyse the impact of the inadequate legal protection on the rights of IDPs in Nigeria.
- To examine of the practical measures needed to enhance the rights of internally displaced persons in Nigeria.
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE DYNAMISM AND CAUSES OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT IN NIGERIA
Introduction
Displacement simply put is a situation in which people are forced to leave the place where normally live. Article 1 (1) of the African Union Convention for Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention,)1defines internal displacement as the involuntary or forced movement, evacuation or relocation of persons or groups of persons within internationally recognized state borders. Article 1(k) of the African Union (AU)
Convention For The Protection And Assistance Of Internally Displaced Persons In Africa (Kampala Convention)[2], defined Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) as persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border. They are generally persons that have been forced to flee their homes or places of habitual residence in order to avoid the outcomes of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violation of human rights or natural or man-made disasters and must have remained within the borders of their country as Internally Displaced Persons or cross international borders as refugees.[3] The term ―internally displaced persons‖ are often wrongly referred to as refugees.[4] Unlike refugees, IDPs have not crossed an international border in search of refuge but have remained in their home countries. Even if they have fled for similar reasons as refugees (armed conflict, generalized violence, human rights violations), internally displaced persons (IDPs) legally remain under the protection of their home governments – even though those governments might be the cause of their flight.[5]
Thus, from the foregoing definition, IDPs are often forced, against their will to move due to circumstances or events outside the sphere of their control such as natural disasters, wars, violence as well as human rights violation in order to seek safety elsewhere within their own country. Unlike refugees, internally displaced persons have not crossed an internationally recognized state border. While the above the definition stresses two important elements of internal displacement (coercion and the domestic/internal movement) it is important to note that rather than a strict definition, the Kampala Convention suggest that circumstances that could internal displacement of persons is non-exhaustive. However, despites indicate that the list of reasons for displacement is not exhaustive statistics on internal displacement generally count only IDPs uprooted by conflict and human rights violations.[6]
Generally, internal displacement may be forced or arbitrary displacement. A number of different terminologies have been used to describe displacement stemming from development projects within different normative frameworks, such as forced evictions, involuntary or coerced displacement, population transfers and internal displacement.[7] The National Policy on IDPs[8] defines arbitrary displacement by adopting the meaning given to the term in the UN
Guiding Principles and the Kampala Convention. The UN Guiding Principles[9] and the Kampala Convention[10] recognise and construe arbitrary displacement to mean: Displacement based on policies of racial discrimination or other similar practices aimed at/or resulting in altering the ethnic, religious or racial composition of the population; Individual or mass displacement of civilians in situations of armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand, in accordance with international humanitarian law; Displacement intentionally used as a method of warfare or due to other violations of international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict; Displacement caused by generalized violence or violations of human rights; Displacement as a result of harmful practices; Forced evacuations in cases of natural or human made disasters or other causes if the evacuations are not required by the safety and health of those affected; Displacement used as a collective punishment; Displacement caused by any act, event, factor, or phenomenon of comparable gravity to all of the above and which is not justified under international law, including human rights and international humanitarian law.
CHAPTER THREE
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
Introduction
The question of how IDPs are protected under international law against human rights violations is not merely one of academic interest, as displacement in itself contradicts basic human rights guarantees. The debate on IDP protection revolves around two sets of potentially contradictory concerns: (a) ensuring international protection of human rights and upholding state responsibilities, and (b) legal provisions for the protection of IDPs and the states‘ capacity to apply those provisions.[1] To this end, it is imperative to explore the adequacy of the existing international legal norms and institutions as basic components for the protection of IDPs. Consequently, this chapter examines the applicability of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law to internal displacement, and considers the extent to which each meets the protection needs of the IDPs. The chapter also gives an overview of the institutional framework for the protection of IDPs.
The international legal framework for the protection of IDPs
Despite not being beneficiaries of a specific convention, IDPs are protected by various bodies oflaw, principally national law, and human rights law and, if they are in a state experiencing anarmed conflict, international humanitarian law. IDPs, like all other citizens, have rights, theentitlement to which they have not lost by virtue of having been displaced. IDPs are nationals ofthe state in which they are displaced, hence they are entitled to the full protection of the nationallaw and the rights it grants nationals without any adverse distinction. Many international legal instruments including international human rights laws and international humanitarian laws contain clauses that could give protection and assistance to IDPs.
However, these international laws are applied situation by situation. Therefore, it is necessary to see which international laws are applied in which situations.
International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of rules which, in war time protects people who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities. Its central purpose is to limit and prevent human suffering in times of armed conflict. The rules of IHL are to be observed not only by governments and their armed forces, but also by armed opposition groups and any other parties to a conflict. Thus, in situations of non-international armed conflicts, international humanitarian laws can be applied. Application of international humanitarian laws is extensive. Contrary to international human rights laws, which are binding to only states and their agents, international humanitarian laws are binding to rebel groups to a certain extent.
The relevant instruments which apply to IDPs under this area of law are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II). Additional Protocol II of 1977 supplements Article 3 Common to the four Geneva Conventions. It applies to all armed conflicts which are not covered by additional Protocol I, that is, non-international armed conflicts and to those which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
Situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature are expressly excluded by this Protocol as they are not considered as being armed conflicts. Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions applies to ―armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties‖. It thus binds both state and non-state actors in an internal conflict situation. Civilians are to be treated humanely without discriminating against them on the basis of their ―race, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria‖. Acts of ―violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited. So also are the ―taking of hostages,―outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; and ―the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court.
CHAPTER FOUR
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS: A CASE STUDY OF NIGERIA
Introduction
Article 3(2) (b) of the Kampala Convention[1] places an obligation on States Parties to designate an authority or body, where needed, responsible for coordinating activities aimed at protecting and assisting IDPs and assign responsibilities to appropriate organs for protection and assistance, and for cooperating with relevant international actors and Civil Society Organisations, where no such authority or body exists. Appointment of a national focal point is a crucial step both to ensure sustained attention to internal displacement issues and to facilitate coordination, both among various branches and bodies of government and between them and other relevant actors, particularly domestic civil society groups, national human rights institutions, and international humanitarian agencies.
Nigeria has established some institutional mechanisms for the protection and assistance of IDPs in the country. This framework has made it relatively easier for the government to cater for the needs of its internally displaced population. Some of these agencies include
National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and National Commission For Refugees (NCFR) with the mandate to offer material assistance to repatriated Nigerians and IDPs irrespective of the cause of displacement and to protect the interest of refugees in Nigeria among others.
National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)
Section 1 (1) of the NEMA Act[2] established NEMA with headquarters in Abuja and with 6 Zonal offices in Enugu, Port Harcourt, Lagos, Jos, Maiduguri and Kaduna. Section of the Act goes further to among others, mandates the agency to organize, provide and coordinate emergency relief to victims of natural disasters throughout the Federation and matters incidental thereto. The Agency is empowered to provide direct material assistance to displaced persons and repatriated Nigerians irrespective of the cause of displacement. The 15 broad functions of the Agency as follows under section 6(1): – The Agency shall – (a) Formulate policy on all activities relating to disaster management in Nigeria and co-ordinate the plans and programmes for efficient and effective response to disasters at national level; (b) Co-ordinate and promote research activities relating to disaster management at the national level; (c) Monitor the state of preparedness of all organizations or agencies which may contribute to disaster management in Nigeria; (d) Collate data from relevant agencies so as to enhance forecasting, planning and field operation of disaster management; (e) Educate and inform the public on disaster prevention and control measures; (f)Co-ordinate and facilitate the provision of necessary resources for search and rescue and other types of disaster curtailment activities in response to distress call; (g) Coordinate the activities of all voluntary organizations engaged in emergency relief operations in any part of the Federation; Receive financial and technical aid from international organizations.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
This dissertation examines the legal and institutions frameworks for the protection of the rights of internally displaced persons in Nigeria in situations of natural disasters. This is predicated on the fact that, the plight of IDPs has increase in recent years, becoming a serious challenge of global implications. In Nigeria, internally displaced persons are often victims of human rights violations, ranging from civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. This is addition to right to life and right to private and family life. This violation is made more tragic where the State takes little or no action to prevent displacement as it leaves the citizens helpless and without hope of succour and restitution.
Protecting the rights of IDPs is a responsibility that rests foremost on government, though with the help of the international community. Therefore, in an effort to discharge this responsibility, there are myriad of legal, institutional and policy framework both at national international level enacted or established for the protection of the rights of displaced persons, this is in addition to efforts of non-state actors and civil societies in the area of providing humanitarian assistance. Thus, IDPs in Nigeria are protected not only by the law in the country, but also by basic norms of customary international law that bind all states – standards such as the prohibition of torture, of racial discrimination, and of slavery. Despites these efforts however, the crisis of internal displacement in Nigeria continues to present challenges that seem overwhelming because of its magnitude.
Findings
The research makes the following findings:
- There is no specific legal framework with the particular objective of assisting and protecting the rights of IDPs especially in situations of natural disasters in Nigeria. Failure to have a specific legislation that will impose a duty on the government to commit a percentage of the national budget toward providing for instance permanent, shelters with safe drinking water and good health care services among others, have left many displaced women and children vulnerable.
- The National Policy on IDPs 2012 has giving NEMA the powers to coordinate the other agencies involve in disaster management. However, the Policy has not defined the jurisdiction of the other agencies in terms of where and when they are expected to step in during disaster management. Consequently, in emergency situations, it is common to find almost all the agencies at the scene taking instruction and directives from their respective heads instead of NEMA. This is most likely going to affect effective co-ordination of activities during disaster management. Furthermore, the policy is not a binding document. Compliance to it is voluntary, and that is its major disadvantage
Recommendations
From the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that:
- The government needs to enact a specific justiciable legislation that would answer to the peculiar needs of IDPs in the country. For instance, to make provision for permanent shelters, well equipped medical facilities, safe drinking water, and schools among others. The National Policy on IDPs is not just enough particular because of its non-binding nature.
- The 2012 National Policy on IDPs should be amended to clearly define how, where and when the other agencies NEMA is coordinating are suppose to get involved during disaster management. This would no doubt help in solving jurisdictional issues and further leads to effective coordination of activities during disaster management. There is need for all the 36 States of the Federation and all the 774 Local Governments in the country to legislate and establish their SEMA and LEMA respectively to address the humanitarian challenges of citizens in their constituencies.
REFERENCES
- Bagshaw S., and Paul D., (2004) Protect or Neglect? Towards a More Effective United Nations Approach to the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and OCHA.
- Brookings-Bern, (2005) Project On Internal Displacement, A Framework for National Responsibility, University of Bern, Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
- Castles, S., Van Hear N., Boyden, J.,Hart J., (2005) Developing DFID’s Policy Approach to Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, volume 1, Oxford: University of Oxford.
- Cavallo, E. & Ilan, N, (2011) The Economics of Natural Disasters, A Survey. IDB Working Papers Series No. IDB-WP-124, Inter-American Development Bank, p. 4
- Cohen, R, Kalin W. & Mooney E. (eds, 2003) The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the Law of the South Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan: Studies in Transnational Legal policy No.34, The American Society of International Law and the Brookings Institution.
- Cohen, R. and Deng, F., (1998) Masses in Flight: The global crisis of Internal Displacement, Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution, p.126.
- Cohen, Roberta, Kalin Walter & Mooney Erin.(eds, 2003) The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the Law of the South Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan: Studies in Transnational Legal policy No.34, The American
- Society of International Law and the Brookings Institution, xiv. Print
