Right To Peace: A Desideratum [Guest Post]

Saheed M. Toyin*

It’s beyond whatchamacallit in describing the steely activities of the various attacks and strikes of the deadly ‘groups’ and ‘sects’, as we call them. In fact, those nomenclatures have reared their ugly heads into our day-to-day diction and have also been anglicised (if you don’t mind). What? It’s those viruses that have successfully raped the virgin land of this country. Have they not despoiled our nation? If you need a better word for ‘violence’, remember ‘Boko Haram’!  One needs not be superhuman before one knows the despicable ‘group’ called by that name. Nigeria: a Desres! The giant of Africa, as it is fondly called is now in a state anomie, chaos and total insecurity. Is this without loss of lives?

Let’s be candid and at least, ambivalent on why the deadly ‘sect’ strikes- INJUSTICE. Although how rational that can be or WHO strikes are outside the scope of this piece, one may not but succinctly remark that enough is enough!

Since the last decade, the nation has been witnessing an ‘enigmatic’ species of insecurity, ranging from the Niger-Delta ‘militancy’ to the Boko Haramites displays of bombing prowess. It seems settled, at least to a reasonable extent, that the former has been ‘porcupined’, the latter still poodles without any serious hindrance with tempest results on the lives of the innocent populace.

It is of course, entrenched in our Constitution, by virtue of Section 33, 1999 CFRN (as amended) that every person has a right to life, though with some exceptions. If this right is truly inalienable, then the lives of every citizen of Nigeria are sacred. Be that as it may, why do we need the right to peace as a fundamental human right?

The pushy way the Boko Haramites strike, resulting in consequential loss of lives of innocent citizens of Nigeria is indeed beyond alarming. Luckily, as far back as 1984 (2nd November), the sentence, “the people of our planet have a sacred right to peace” – was inserted into the first operative paragraph in the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace and adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. In fact, the nexus that exists between the right to life (guaranteed in the Constitution) and the right to peace is recognised in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 55 to/ of the U.N. Charter and Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) inter alia. The Preamble to the Charter provides:

“to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours.”

In addition, the Preamble to the UDHR states that “the recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (emphasis mine). Therefore, these International instruments provide a nigh Paradise for all citizens to be in niche and thus, “constitute obligation of each state”.

It may be posited that these provisions have not, in any way, made the right to peace a fundamental human right. However, I strongly contend that with peace, the social, economic and political well-being of the State (envisaged by the Instruments) will be practicable. In essence, can there be good governance in a violent society?

To my mind, peace must be present in every society in fact and in law. Why? If it is only present in fact, the inexistent law will be taken advantage of because it is not in existence. If it exists in law alone, there may be offensive violation of the law, if it doesn’t exist in fact, as peace itself is part of humanity, thus making the law a toothless bull-dog, and rendered impotent. In essence, peace is better expressed in white and black alone without any serious efficacy, ‘if’ does not exist in fact. As such, violence and insecurity are incongruous and indecorous with/ to the right to peace. Therefore, this right should be made fundamental, as well as a duty which every citizen owes to one another, to prevent the breach of the guaranteed fundamental human rights. When this is done, any act or omission that could constitute a threat to peace will be inimical to other rights and human development will improve. In fact, the culture of peace will imbibe in the citizens’ minds, respect for ethical values and democratic ideals.

This idea, therefore, has International flavours and not that novel in the Nigerian legal system, since the country is a signatory to these instruments. But then, is the right to life the same as the right to peace? It is not only a malapropism to posit that ‘life’ and ‘peace’ are the same, but out of place. In fact, if peace is elevated to the rank of human right, there will be adequate safe-guard, for all other rights.

Imagine a society that is Boko Haram-free, MEND-friendly, then think of inserting the right to peace in our Constitution. In this way, violence will be ameliorated and the culture of peace will reign and people will learn to be more tolerant and will not infringe on another’s rights unreasonably (at least, to a large extent). It will also promote sustainable development and equality among the citizenry. When this is done, ideal democracy is attainable, as envisaged by our Constitution by virtue of the provision of S. 14. (1) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice. When this is done, who will take to the streets? Who will carry arms or take hostage? Who will deliberately detonate a bomb where there are innocent citizens?

Let’s ask ourselves whether there is true unity in this country presently. Can we safely say we don’t have retarded progress in the major sectors of the economy? What if there is peace? Apart from being in tandem with the provision of S. 15. (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides that “The motto of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be Unity and Faith, Peace and Progress”, there will be unity and the paraphernalia for the much-expected progress will be attainable.

The spate of bombings, therefore, is not a kismet in the least, and if it is, it can be successfully handled. The government should therefore, wake up from their kip, and adopt a more lasting solution to curb the menace of the various unrests in our land. More importantly, the Constitution of Nigeria, by virtue of the provision of S.14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that the “security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government”. Therefore, entrenching the right to peace in our law as a fundamental human right will have a sassafras-end, pleasing and more apt in reducing drastically (if not solving the problems of) the various attacks and strikes of some people, all in the name of injustice. We are lucky! This is a time the Constitution is undergoing amendment. The time is now! One foresees the sinister that the various strikes will lead to, if not nipped in the bud. Innocent citizens are dying. Enough is enough!

* He is a Public Analyst and writes from Ilorin. You may contact him on [email protected], [email protected], 2348166001924 (Text only) or visit his blog at mtoyin.blogspot.com.

2 COMMENTS

  1. This is a beautiful piece, very analytical and identifying the source of the ongoing bloodshed pointedly. I quite subscribe to Mtoyin’s submission that our beloved nation needs peace in fact and in law. Indeed, it’s useless to have one without the other.
    As an addendum to making peace a fundamental human right, the government should conscientiously combat corruption and injustice. Those are the root causes of this imbroglio and any reasonable long term solution must seek to tame them.
    Long live Nigeria!