Report of the NBA Regional Consultation on the Review of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, which held in Enugu on April 25, 2008.

The promotion and protection of human rights is the primary function of the state. Efforts have been made in the past to ensure the protection and respect of human rights in Nigeria. Part of those efforts culminated in the inclusion of Chapter 4 (Fundamental Rights) provisions in the 1979 Constitution. In recognition of the fact that these rights are sui generis, the Constitution empowered the Chief Justice of Nigeria to make special rules for the enforcement of Chapter 4 rights. The aim of this provision is to ensure an effective procedure that gives meaning to the intendment of the Chapter 4 provisions. The Rule was adopted in 1980 and has been in force since then.

The fact that the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules (FREPR) has not been reviewed since 1980, in spite of the various developments and challenges in human rights litigation and protection, raises concern. Our research has shown that there are gaps in the Rules, which have impacted negatively on its effectiveness. The Chief Justice of Nigeria has endorsed this process and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is working closely with Access to Justice (AJ) in driving this review initiative. The aim of this consultation is to interact with practitioners and relevant stakeholders, to identify problems with the FREPR and proffer recommendations on how best to make it effective and by extension promote human rights in Nigeria.

Some of the questions participants in this consultation may have to consider include but not limited to the following:

1. How effective has the Rules been in ensuring speedy dispensation of human rights cases?

2. What are the problems with the mode of commencement?

3. What factors affect expeditious dispensation of cases?

4. Are the Rules comprehensive enough?

5. Are the procedures complex?

6. Can they be simplified?

7. Which specific provisions of the Rules do you think would require an amendment?

8. How effective is the enforcement of judgment under the Rules?

9. Should actions relating to human rights violation be subject to time bar?

10. What provisions do you think should be included in the Rules?

The above questions are not exhaustive but provide a guide on the issues at stake. Participants in this consultation are expected to come up with analysis and recommendations that would ensure a comprehensive, user-friendly and effective Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.

The forum started at about 12 noon with over 200 lawyers from the Enugu branch of the Nigerian Bar Association in attendance. The chairperson was Mrs. Justina Offiah, SAN, who introduced the programme officers (Mr. Jude U. Ilo and Mr. Ikenna E. Enebe) from the national secretariat of the Nigerian Bar Association.

Mr. Jude Ilo, the senior programmes officer started by saying that the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules was made in 1979 pursuant to the 1979 Constitution and came into force in 1980 and has not been reviewed since then. That due to the complaints from lawyers on the inadequacies of the Rules to defend and effectively protect rights, there is an urgent need for the NBA as the umbrella body of all legal practitioners in Nigeria to push for a review of the Rules to bring it in tandem with the demands of protecting human rights in the 21st century and thus this forum. He then asked for reactions, comments, suggestions and questions from the lawyers present.

Chikelu Anya (the public relations officer of the branch) made the first comment. He alluded to the decision of the Supreme Court in BAYO JOHNSON V. LUFADEJU and said that it made nonsense of the right to liberty under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He suggested that the NBA should approach the CJN to review the decision and possibly remove the 14 days leave required by the FREPR Rules.

In response, Mr. Ilo said that the NBA was already looking into that decision and was preparing papers to approach the African Court to decide whether the "Holding Charge" is compatible with the African Charter to which Nigeria is a signatory. In relation to the above point, Mr. Ilo also asked for the reactions of the house about the leave required from the Attorney General to enforce judgments against government agencies. It was the consensus of the whole house that that provision of the law should be expunged as it was an impediment to getting justice for litigants.

In his reaction, M.O. Will referred to affidavit of service required from court bailiffs as referred to in Order 2 of the Rules. It was his view that the provision should be expunged and evidence of proof of service should be enough to make the court hear the case.

Mrs. Odukwu Ojiugo talked on the provision in Order 1 that requires at least 24 hours before a case is heard. She said it gives room for the person being complained against to do whatever act or further prevent the doing of whatever act that is being complained of. Her suggestion was that there should be provision in the new Rules for leave to be sought and gotten on the same day even if it is to be heard by court registrars.

Mr. Ilo then gave the story of a squatter in India who changed the jurisprudential landscape of India when the state threatened to demolish his squatter-shelter because it did not comply with the city's building plan. The man wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India to lay his complaint and on the strength of that letter the man's case was heard. The case also helped to extend the meaning of the right to life under the Indian Constitution to include the right to live in an environment that supports life. It was the unanimous decision of the house that the procedure for bringing a fundamental rights case before the court should be made less technical such that even the common man can bring a matter for his right without necessarily having recourse to a legal practitioner as was the case in the above mentioned Indian case.

In his contribution, J.N. Igwebuike spoke on the time it takes to get a case assigned to a court or judge for hearing. He opined that for fundamental rights to be effectively and efficiently protected there was need to assign fundamental rights cases expeditiously. On the provision of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act, which requires that the leave of the Attorney General be sought and gotten before any judgement is enforced against any government agency, he suggested that the AG should be bypassed when it has to do with fundamental rights.

S.O.N. Attah spoke on compensation for victims of human right abuses. He said in his experience most people whose rights were violated stemmed from wrong and malicious information to the police. He thus suggested that in addition to the normal judgments of the court, compensation should be paid to the victims of such abuses.

The above view was echoed by another respondent who however added that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in section 36(6) had already made provisions for compensation and public apology for such victims. That it was now left for lawyers to seek such remedies and for judges to enforce the provisions.

After further deliberation on the provisions of the rules, the forum came to an end at about 3 O'clock with Mr. Ilo giving out the e-mail of the programmes unit to the participants and asked those who had further suggestions or comments to send such to the e-mail box.