Right to Dignity of the Human Person
At the heart of human rights is the belief that everybody should be treated equally and with dignity – no matter what their circumstances. This means that nobody should be tortured or treated in and inhuman or degrading way. It also means that nobody has the right to ‘own’ another person or to force them to work under threat of punishment. And it means that everybody should have access to public services and the right to be treated fairly by those services. This applies to all public services, including the criminal justice system. For example, if you are arrested and charged, you should not be treated with prejudice and your trial should be fair. This right is one of the most intrinsic rights of a man and can be seen as the determinant of personhood.
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
The concept of human dignity and personhood transcends the limitation of national constitutional provisions.
Section 34 of the 1999 constitution provides:
Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person and accordingly -
- No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.
- No person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and
- No person shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Right against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading treatment
The United Nations General Assembly once stated that torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
In similar vein, the European Commission on Human Rights maintained that the word torture is often used to describe inhuman treatment which has a purpose such as the obtaining of information or confessions, or the infliction of punishment, and it is generally an aggravated form of inhuman treatment.
According to Prof. Nwabueze, this covers not only the type of punishment meted out to an offender, but his treatment in police custody or prison. In the words of Niki Tobi;
"the word torture etymologically means to put a person to some form of pain which could be extreme. It also means to put a person to some form of anguish or excessive pain.”
In State V. Rabiu, the confessional statement credited to the respondent was obtained by use of torture.
An inhuman treatment has been defined as a barbarous, uncouth, and cruel treatment, a treatment which has no human feeling on the party of the person inflicting the barbarity or cruelty.
In Mogaji V. Board of Customs & Excise, Adefarasin CJ held that it was a violation of the constitutional prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment to organize a raid with the use of guns, horse-whips and tear gas in a market in the course of a purported search of contraband goods & to injure custodians of such goods.
Also, in Alaboli V. Boyle, the beating, pushing and submersion of the applicant's head in a pool of water by the first respondent was held to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment.
Capital Punishment
Decisions from foreign jurisdictions and international tribunals have been consistent that corporal punishment as a sentence imposed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides for example in Article 1 that "No one shall be condemned to death penalty or executed."
In the Indian case of Triveniben & Ors V. State of Gurujat & Ors, the court held that an inordinate delay in the execution of a death may entitle a prisoner to come to court for examination of whether it is just and fair to allow i.
In Madhu Metha V. Union of India, the death sentence was altered to life imprisonment because the prisoner has been awaiting a decision on his mercy petition for over 8 years as a result of which he had suffered mental agony of being under death sentence for too long.
The European Court of Human Rights held in Soering V. United Kingdom that extradition could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the death row condition in the death row centre. This was because it was found that a man went for about 6-8 years before execution in the American state of Virginia where the applicant was to be extradited to, and his crime of murder may have well attracted the death sentence.
There is to this day no Nigerian decision under this head, although Nigerian criminal law still authorizes whipping as a measure of punishment on juvenile offenders.
Prisoners, Detainers and the Right to Human Dignity
The right to dignity of the human person is most commonly violated in Nigeria in relation to detainees and prisoners. Detainees in Nigeria are subjected to all manner of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, in some cases for the purpose of extracting confessional statements from them.
The Supreme Court of India stated unequivocally that a person during lawful detention is entitled to be treated with dignity befitting any human being and the mere fact that he has been detained lawfully does not mean that he can be subjected to ill treatment much less tortuous beating.
In Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace V. AG. Zimbabwe & Ors, the Supreme court of Zimbabwe pointed out that "prison walls do not keep out fundamental rights and protections" and thus prisoners, no matter the magnitude of the crime are not reduced to non-persons but retain all basic rights, save those inevitably removed from them by law, expressly or by implication. Consequently, they are entitled to the right to human dignity.
Violations here have been held to include medical neglect, beating of prisoners, housing or prisoners in poor prison conditions, deplorable sanitation, overcrowding of prison inmates, starvation and malnutrition, etc. In the light of this, there is no doubt that conditions in Nigerian police cells and prisons negate this right to dignity of the human person. This makes rehabilitation as a goal of punishment almost impossible to achieve as many of the prisoners come out disillusioned and much more hardened.
As was reported in the Newswatch of June 19, 1989, the Nigerian prisons have become a national disgrace. Convicts who survive the ordeal of the prison come out usually worse, mentally and physically wrecked. In Fawehinmi V. Abacha, the court of appeal held that the state has a responsibility to ensure that a person in custody is not put under undue danger of his health and safety.
Prohibition of Slavery and Servitude
To further enhance this prohibition, Section 364 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime to unlawfully imprison, or take a person out of Nigeria without his consent, or prevent him from applying to the court for his release; or from being discovered by any other person; or prevent a person who ought to have access to him from discovering the place of imprisonment.
Furthermore, Section 366 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime to intimidate a person, make and compel him to do an unlawful act, or prevent him from doing an act he is unlawfully entitled to do. For example, through threats of injury to his person; reputation or injury to any other person; or through persistent following, besetting or watching the person or his place of abode or work. In other words, under these provisions, any type of slavery or servitude, or compulsion to act in a particular way is prohibited.
Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labour
This means all forms of forced labour, whether legally imposed or not are generally prohibited here. Section 34 (2) however makes provisions for some exceptions to this:
- Any labour required in consequence of the sentence or order of court.
- Any labour required of members of the armed forces of the federation and the police force in pursuance of their duties as such or, in the case of persons who have conscientious objections to serve in the armed forces of the federation, any labour required instead of such service.
- Any labour required which is reasonably necessary in the event of any emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; or
- Any labour or service that forms part of;
- Normal command or other civil obligations for the well being of the community i.e. environmental sanitation.
- Such compulsory National service in the armed forces of the federation as may be prescribed by an act of the National Assembly.
- Such compulsory National Service which forms part of the education & training of citizens of Nigeria as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. e.g. the National Youth Service Corps scheme.
In Nkpa V. Nkume, the court of appeal acknowledged that under Section 34 (2) (d), forced or compulsory labour does not include any labour or service that forms part of normal communal or other civil obligations for the well-being of the community.
Disproportionality of Punishments to the Offence Committed
The right to the dignity of the human person may be violated when punishment is disproportionate to the offence committed. In Soering V. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights, held that it might be necessary to take account of such factors such as the proportionality of punishment contravenes the provision against inhuman and degrading treatment.
In State v. Makwanyane the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that proportionality is an ingredient to be taken into account on deciding whether a penalty is cruel, inhuman and/or degrading.