THE IMPACT OF THE TERRORISM (Prevention) ACT ONHUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

Nigeria’s response to terrorism has been shaped largely by the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 and its Amendment Act 2013. While much scholarship focuses on the tension between counter terrorism measures and the rights of suspects, less attention has been paid to the human rights of victims. This article critically examines the extent to which the state protects, advances, or undermines the rights of victims of terrorism in Nigeria. It evaluates statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees, judicial decisions, and regional human rights standards.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria’s challenge with terrorism and insurgency, especially the violence perpetrated by groups such as Boko Haram and its affiliates, has prompted legislative responses aimed at suppressing terrorism and enhancing national security. Central among these legislative measures is the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.

The Terrorism (Prevention) Act (TPA), initially enacted in 2011 and subsequently amended, notably in 2013, seeks to criminalize terrorist acts and empower law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorism activities. While the law’s primary objective is to protect national security, its implementation has raised concerns about human rights violations. This article examines the impact of the TPA on human rights in Nigeria, highlighting the tensions between security measures and individual liberties.

OVERVIEW OF THE TERRORISM (PREVENTION) ACT

The Terrorism (Prevention) Act criminalizes acts of terrorism, terrorist financing, recruitment, and support for terrorist groups. It grants wide powers of arrest, detention, surveillance, and asset freezing.[1] The Act establishes jurisdiction for prosecution and prescribes severe penalties, including life imprisonment. However, explicit provisions addressing victims’ rights are limited. While forfeited assets may be managed by the government, the Act does not create a structured compensation scheme for victims.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND TERRORISM

Human rights are universal values and legal guarantees that protect individuals and groups against actions and omissions primarily by State agents that interfere with fundamental freedoms, entitlements and human dignity. According to Wikipedia, human rights are universally recognized moral principles or norms that establish standards of human behavior and are often protected by both national and international laws. The full spectrum of human rights involves respect for, and protection and fulfilment of, civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, as well as the right to development. Human rights are universal, in other words, they belong inherently to all human beings and are interdependent and indivisible.[2]

Terrorism is commonly understood to refer to acts of violence that target civilians in the pursuit of political or ideological aims. The Department of Homeland Security defines terrorism as a premeditated threat or act of violence against persons, property, environment or economy, to induce fear or to intimidate, coerce or affect a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof in furtherance of political, social, ideological or religious objectives. Also, in 1994, the General Assembly’s Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism[3], set out in its resolution that terrorism includes criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or a group of persons.

The General Assembly is currently working towards the adoption of a comprehensive convention against terrorism[4], which would complement the existing sectoral anti-terrorism conventions. Its draft article 2 contains a definition of terrorism which includes “unlawfully and intentionally” causing, attempting or threatening to cause: “(a) death or serious bodily

injury to any person; or (b) serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transport system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or (c) damage to property, places, facilities, or systems…, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct,

by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” The draft article[5] further defines as an offence participating as an accomplice, organizing or directing others, or contributing to the commission of such offences by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.

IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Terrorism has a direct impact on the enjoyment of a number of human rights, in particular the rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. Terrorist acts can destabilize Governments, undermine civil society, jeopardize peace and security, threaten social and economic development, and may especially negatively affect certain groups. All of these have a direct impact on the enjoyment of fundamental human rights of persons for political purposes, and such acts are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Women and children constitute a significant proportion of victims. Abductions, forced marriages, and sexual violence have been documented in insurgency-affected regions. Nigeria is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child[6] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women[7]. These instruments impose obligations to provide recovery and reintegration services. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act does not integrate gender sensitive or child-specific provisions. A right-based approach requires explicit reference to these vulnerabilities.

The United Nations family has itself suffered tragic human loss as a result of violent terrorist acts. The attack on its offices in Baghdad on 19 August 2003 claimed the lives of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 21 other men and women, and injured over 150 others, some very seriously. Terrorism obviously has a real and direct impact on human rights. The destructive impact of terrorism on human rights and security has been recognized at the highest level of the United Nations, notably by the Security Council[8], the General Assembly, the former Commission on Human Rights[9] and the new Human Rights Council. Specifically, Member States have set out that terrorism:

• Threatens the dignity and security of human beings everywhere, endangers or takes innocent lives, creates an environment that destroys the freedom from fear of the people, jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and aims at the destruction of human rights;
• Has an adverse effect on the establishment of the rule of law, undermines pluralistic civil society, aims at the destruction of the democratic bases of According to the words of the Council of Europe’s Secretary General “The anti-terrorism fight is aimed to protect basic human rights and democracy, not to undermine them”, therefore, the critical nature of terrorism or insurgency cannot be used as an excuse by the country to fail to fulfil their human right obligations devastating consequences for the enjoyment of the right to life, liberty and physical integrity of victims. In addition to these individual costs, terrorism can destabilize Governments, undermine civil society, jeopardize peace and security, and threaten social and economic development. [10]

THE STATE’S DUTY TO PROTECT

The nation has an undeniable right and duty to fight and repress criminal acts and they must do so within the scope of their laws and in compliance with international laws.  Human rights law obliges States, primarily, to do certain things and prevents them from doing others. States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Respect for human rights primarily involves not interfering with their right to enjoyment of personal liberty and freedom of movement. Protection is focused on taking positive steps to ensure that others do not interfere with the enjoyment of rights. The fulfilment of human rights requires States to adopt appropriate measures, including legislative, judicial, administrative or educative measures, in order to fulfil their legal obligations. Human rights law also places a responsibility on states to provide effective remedies[11] in the event of violation through terrorism therefore, a state party may be found responsible or interference by private persons or entities in the enjoyment of human rights if it has failed to exercise due diligence in protecting against such acts.

In the case of human rights treaties, those States that are party to a particular treaty have obligations under that treaty. There are various mechanisms for enforcing these obligations, including the evaluation by treaty-monitoring bodies of a state’s compliance with certain treaties and the ability of individuals to complain about the violation of their rights to international bodies. Moreover, and particularly relevant to a number of human rights challenges in countering terrorism, all members of the United Nations are obliged to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations for the achievement of the purposes set out in Article 55 of its Charter[12], including universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES

Under section 33 and section 34[13], the Constitution guarantees the right to life the right to dignity, section 44 protects property rights, while section 46 provides for enforcement of fundamental rights. Victims of terrorism fall squarely within these protections. The Supreme Court, in Attorney General of the Federation v Attorney General of Abia State[14], affirmed the binding force of constitutional provisions and underscored the supremacy of the Constitution. This principle implies that counter terrorism measures must align with constitutional rights, including those of victims. Also, in Gani Fawehinmi v Abacha, the Supreme Court recognized the domesticated status of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Nigeria and this decision reinforces victims’ ability to rely on regional human rights standards.

CONCLUSION

The Terrorism (Prevention) Act remains a cornerstone of Nigeria’s counter- terrorism attempt as it represents Nigeria’s principal legislative response to terrorism, reflecting the state’s determination to confront violent extremism and ensure public safety. It strengthens investigation and prosecution, thereby contributing indirectly to the protection of life. Victims’ rights to remedy, reparation, dignity, and participation receive limited statutory attention. Constitutional guarantees and regional jurisprudence, particularly SERAC v Nigeria[15] and Gani Fawehinmi v Abacha[16], establish that the state bears positive obligations not only to punish offenders but to repair and even prevent harm.

Bibliography

CFRN 1999 (as amended)

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 1989

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S DECLARATION ON MEASURES TO ELIMINATE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, 1994

CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN 1979

UN SECURITY COUNCIL 1373 (S/RES/1373(2001)

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

TERRORISM (PREVENTION AND PROHIBITION) ACT 2011 (Amendment 2013)

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1946 – 2006)

UN BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ON THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY AND REPARATION, 2005 AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS 1981

AGF V. AG ABIA STATE (2002)

GANI FAWEHINMI V. ABACHA (2000)

SERAC & ANOR V. NIGERIA (2001)

OFFICE OF THE UN HIGH COMMISIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS- HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM AND COUNTER-TERRORISM

[1] TERRORISM (PREVENTION AND PROHIBITION) ACT 2011 (amendment 2013)

[2] HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM AND COUNTER-TERRORISM, OFFICE OF THE UN HIGH COMMISIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

[3] UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S DECLARATION ON MEASURES TO ELIMINATE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, 1994 (RESOLUTION 49/60)

[4] UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM, DRAFT ARTICLE 2 (a)(b)

[5] UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM, DRAFT ARTICLE 2 (c)

[6] CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 1989

[7] CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN 1979

[8] UN SECURITY COUNCIL 1373 (S/RES/1373(2001)

[9]   UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1946 – 2006)

[10] OFFICE OF THE UN HIGH COMMISIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS- HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRORISM AND COUNTER-TERRORISM

[11] UN BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ON THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY AND REPARATION, 2005

[12] AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLE’S RIGHTS 1981, ARTICLE 55

[13] CFRN 1999 (as amended) SECTION (33)(34)(44)

[14] AGF V. AG ABIA STATE (No 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt 764) 542

[15] SERAC & ANOR V. NIGERIA (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001)

[16] GANI FAWEHINMI V. ABACHA (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt 660) 228