The hostile side of the state: Siracusa Principles, human rights and the precarity of COVID-19 policing in Nigeria

Abstract

In line with global advisories, the Nigerian authorities explored what could be termed a ‘stringent’ lockdown measure to contain the transmission of the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent a public health catastrophe. In this study, I examine the appositeness of the measure and its manner of implementation within the purview of the 1984 Siracusa Principles and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the derogation of human rights. The principles and ICCPR guarantee equitable access to basic healthcare for all citizens and obligate state parties to take actions to prevent potential harm to public health if such actions are necessary, lawful, evidence-based, non-discriminatory, unarbitrary, proportional, respectful of human dignity, and brief in timeframe. I argue that although the measure aligns with the principles, ICCPR and Nigeria’s COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 - its manner of implementation typified gross human rights breaches, extrajudicial practices, and repressive state behaviours. However, this study offers a novel understanding of statecraft and citizens–government relations during the pandemic – pandemic policing and public health management – while emphasising that upholding human rights and strengthening democratic ideals are central to containing future pandemics successfully.

Keywords:

• COVID-19
• lockdown
• Siracusa Principles
• human rights
• democracy
• Nigerian police

Introduction

The global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled movement restrictions intended to achieve the containment of the spread while the infected cases are treated. Following the index case recorded in Nigeria’s commercial city, Lagos, on 27 February 2020 (Ayodele 2021; Ebenso and Otu 2020; Garba et al. 2020), adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO) advisories on increased testing, contact tracing, isolation, patients’ care, social distancing, and necessary preventive hygiene became imperative. Further, a lockdown policy was introduced to limit physical interaction and community transmission of the disease despite the lack of social support for citizens against hardship resulting from implementing such policy.

While lockdown remains central in containing the pandemic effectively, its implementation has been marred by draconian practices that tend to suppress human rights and worsen the plight of people (Shodunke and Oladipupo 2022). The containment was instead used as an opportunity to accentuate the pre-existing state-sponsored repression – police officers misused force to ensure compliance (Okolie-Osemene 2021; Onuoha, Ezirim, and Onuh 2021). Also, journalists were threatened, and their access to information sources was restricted, violating the right to free expression (Alade and Sanusi 2022). Although the rationale behind the lockdown aligns with the 1984 Siracusa Principles on managing extraordinary situations in which states may derogate human rights, actions of the state agents contravene the principles and other international conventions on human rights. The principles guarantee that all individuals, regardless of socioeconomic status, have an inalienable right to access basic healthcare and mandate that governments take measures to prevent potential harm to public health. To ‘buy’ public endorsement amidst managing public health emergencies, the principles strongly emphasise the derogation to be lawful, necessary, evidence-based, non-discriminatory, respectful of human dignity, feasible in objectives, and brief in timeframe. Further, states’ actions must align with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stipulating that the restriction cannot be based exclusively on race, colour, sex, language, religion, or socioeconomic status (Sun 2020).

Despite the human rights provisions, the manner of implementing the lockdown measures in Nigeria violated expected standards, as there were cases of arbitrary arrest, assault, and extrajudicial killing by police personnel while enforcing the curfew directives. Censorship and severe restrictions on freedom of speech hampered people’s capacity to obtain critical health information and hold governments accountable for their statements and actions (Sun 2020). During the first 14 days of restriction, Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC 2020) recorded 105 cases of human rights violations. Excessive use of force, misuse of emergency/police power, non-compliance with human rights standards, and lack of professionalism by law enforcement per established criteria were all identified as contributing factors in the report. Thus, the implementation reeked of precarity in achieving the objectives of legitimacy and social cohesion while managing the pandemic.

Previous cases of repression while managing security threats, public mistrust, and policy unprecedentedness further heightened public resentment and resulted in non-compliance with the policy and attendant state actions. Democratic accountability and human rights protection processes require the state’s public health management policy to be sensitive to public welfare and the common good. Examining the state’s use of emergency power amid extraordinary circumstances is central to explaining and comprehending the justifiability of non-medical containment actions of state actors – lockdowns during public health crises. Hence, within the purview of the Siracusa Principles in the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the ICCPR, this article examines statewide and nationwide lockdowns culminating into repression and human rights infringements by state agents - the police, under the guise of enforcing the lockdowns in Nigeria.

This article is divided into five sections. After this introduction, the second section discusses the catastrophes of the pandemic and the justification for human rights derogations. Using the provision of Siracusa Principles and Nigeria’s COVID-19 Regulation, 2020, the third section reviews states’ obligations under international laws and the standards for limiting human rights during an emergency threatening national safety and existence. Also, it appraises how the Nigerian government approached the containment efforts through restrictions. In the fourth section, I discuss how the lockdown culminated in human rights breaches – abuse by security forces and suppression of the press. To sufficiently validate the reports of state repression amid COVID-19 containment, I highlight cases of abuse by security forces, and I review studies on police illegalities during the pandemic. Given the important roles of the police in public safety and order (Sierra-Arévalo 2019; Shodunke, Oladipupo, Alabi, et al. 2023), I focus more on police actions. Next, the fifth section explores democracy, human rights, and public health and how the Nigerian authorities handled the pandemic, highlighting the deep-seated challenges in the public healthcare sector and the improvement efforts. Beyond the Siracusa Principles and ICCPR, I consider other conventions, obligating the Nigerian authorities to prioritise public health as a dividend of democracy and public good. The conclusion underscores the imperatives of upholding human rights and their international instruments amid an emergency (pandemic), sufficient investment in and equipment of the healthcare system, security sector reforms, the rule of law, and democratic ideals.

Generally, this paper answers questions bordering public health emergencies – the COVID-19 pandemic, human rights, and the interventions by state agents: Does the pandemic pose a serious hazard to public health and well-being? What strategy did the Nigerian government explore to manage the pandemic? What specific provisions in national laws, soft law norms, and international conventions permit the government to restrict fundamental human rights during such an emergency? How did the strategy translate to human rights breaches by security forces? In answering the questions, this paper used a documentary approach of examining online news reports, academic articles, and reports from non-governmental, governmental, and multi-governmental organisations. The approach focused on academic and non-academic sources that discuss the case statistics of COVID-19 and Nigeria’s preparedness efforts, human rights standards, COVID-19 policing, and incidents of police abuses in Nigeria.

COVID-19, public health, and the imperativeness of human rights derogation

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), commonly referred to as coronavirus disease, is a highly contagious and potentially fatal respiratory illness associated with varying health complications, as well as outcomes such as acute pneumonia, multiple organ failures, and potential death (Çalıca Utku et al. 2020). Following its outbreak in Wuhan, China, on 31 December 2019, it rapidly disseminated to many countries in early 2020, as illustrated in Figure 1, and containment efforts placed overwhelming burdens on healthcare systems. Theoretically, its precipitous transmission exemplifies what Giddens (2002) describes as a risk society in which modern advancements come with an attendant multiplication of risk that can be mitigated through human interventions. While the pandemic is an example of a threat that results from an identifiable danger – a zoonotic infectious disease: SARS-CoV-2 – it spread throughout the world due to globalisation–industrialisation, trans-national trade, and migration, outbreaking index cases in many nations by January 2020. Consequently, the WHO declared the disease a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020 (Shodunke, Oladipupo, Adeoti, et al. 2023) and a pandemic in March 2020 (Cucinotta and Vanelli 2020). In Nigeria, foreign trade with and migration from early-hit countries quickened the outbreak with the entry of an Italian national into the country’s commercial city - Lagos on 27 February 2020.

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of confirmed COVID-19 cases as of 31 March 2020.

Source: Mathieu et al. (2020).

This figure illustrates the global spread of COVID-19 infections as of 31 March 2020, with the highest share of cases recorded in Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Estonia), Iran and the United States – at least 200 confirmed cases. Other countries such as the United Kingdom, China, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Australia had recorded fewer cases by this time. show.

Further to the WHO’s declaration, affected nations mandated social distancing and lockdowns to reduce community transmission while infected individuals are treated. These measures strategically address what Clarke and Beck (1994) describe as hazard and safety threats in a risk society. They involve restriction of daily movement; total closure of business, gatherings of any kind, and public places; and other restrictive actions except ‘essential services’ in the broader spectrum of response plans. The epidemic itself posed a direct threat to the fulfilment of human rights – the rights to life and health – whereby millions of people globally have died as a result. Thus, states are obligated to exercise reasonable diligence to safeguard the people from further infection and attendant health crises (Spadaro 2020). The catastrophic nature of the pandemic justified setting aside human rights via lockdown and social distancing to limit human proximity – measures that I term a necessary evil to safeguard nations. Therefore, the measures derogated human rights, most fundamentally the right to movement, decent work, education, etc.

According to Hafner-Burton, Helfer, and Fariss (2011), derogation is a strategic measure governments take to address uncertainties, allowing governments to limit liberties while confronting crises threatening national safety temporarily. For rights-derogation measures to be considered according to Siracusa Principles and Article 4 of ICCPR, there must be an emergency threatening national safety and existence to the extent that the emergency’s exigencies strictly require such measures, provided they are consistent with states’ obligations under international law and involve no discrimination solely based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, or social origin. Also, such measures must be the least restrictive possible, strictly necessary, commensurate, brief in timeframe, evidence-based, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, democratic, and subject to future review against abusive applications (Sun 2020).

While derogation of the right to movement is important in addressing the transmission of COVID-19, states are also obligated to protect individuals from health harms that could be caused by COVID-19 carriers (Spadaro 2020). The protection could be understood as quarantining of suspected carriers and treatment of confirmed patients. Ensuring the right to health includes preventing and treating epidemics, and access to healthcare (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2000). In addition to the human rights framework on health and liberties, additional important elements encompass the availability of drinkable water, food, sanitation, decent housing, and social security. While addressing an emergency, guaranteeing significantly fairer and more respectful actions greatly contributes to integrating the right to health into people’s everyday lives. Governments are obligated to operate per legal principles, with a particular emphasis on fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability (Gostin et al. 2019). From the preceding, the derogation of the right of movement adopted by the government of Nigeria and other countries was rooted in their obligation to protect the public and provide adequate healthcare in times of an emergency, aligning with their obligation in international law, as outlined by the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

However, authoritarian regimes have exploited the pandemic as a pretext for human rights infringements – suppression of COVID-19 information, persecution of whistleblowers, political opponents, and citizen journalists, and undermining of democratic ideals (Gostin et al. 2023). Thus, it is imperative that emergency measures consider fair and impartial treatment of infected individuals, regard for civil and political rights amidst health crisis, and the safeguarding of the right to access and safeguard health-related information. As well, the right to healthcare and fairness deserves enhancement in both (domestic and international) health and human rights systems while making right-based preparations for future health emergencies (Gostin et al. 2023).

Human rights standards – the 1984 Siracusa Principles, ICCPR and Nigeria’s COVID-19 regulation, 2020

The Siracusa Principles were developed in 1984 to address the potential for human rights derogation when states take measures to address extraordinary situations at the expense of individuals’ rights. When considered as a whole, the principles ensure that individuals’ rights are carefully considered and balanced against the state’s efforts to protect the general population’s well-being (Abiola 2011). Restrictions are only permissible if they are supported by law as the least restrictive possible, strictly necessary, commensurate, brief in timeframe, evidence-based, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, democratic, and subject to future review against abusive applications. When deciding whether to restrict rights or not, it is imperative to consider the disparate impact on specific (marginalised) groups of people (Sun 2020). The minimum set of rights that can be infringed upon should be commensurate with the outcomes agreed upon as part of the limits (Huscroft, Miller, and Webber 2014).

In addition, the ICCPR provides that states may require more powers in such situations, and implementation should be limited in duration and scope and used only temporarily to restore normalcy as soon as feasible. No Covenant restriction may be construed to compromise the core of the right it restricts (Tampubolon 2022). Safeguards must be in place to protect some fundamental rights that may never be revoked under any circumstances: the right to a decent standard of living, including food, water, healthcare, shelter, social protection, sanitation, and education.

Legality: The authorities must justify restrictions upon rights. The restriction must be supported by extant law(s), which must be democratically made, reasonable, definite, clear, and understandable.

Necessity: The restriction must serve an urgent public need and be justified by one of the ICCPR’s permissible reasons – the protection of public health.

Proportionality: The restriction must be reasonable considering the interest at risk. It must effectively provide the necessary level of protection and be the least restrictive alternative available.

Non-discrimination: It must be scientific and non-discriminative (in content and application).

The interest of the concerned right: Any restrictions placed on a right must be strictly interpreted in favour of that right. It must be to protect the particular right(s). Authorities must justify any limitations placed on citizens’ freedoms.

Under the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation provisions in the ICCPR,¹ the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2020) provides guidance in applying emergency power, involving law enforcement agents, and implementing penalties for violations:

• State parties to the ICCPR must notify the impacted people of the nature, location, and scope of the emergency and the steps taken in response to it. Such notification must be disseminated quickly in languages that are generally understandable. The public needs to be aware of the new legal rules and obedience procedures.

• Principles of openness and accountability should inform emergency response during a crisis. Emergency management funds must be utilised judiciously and fairly in ways that do not stifle critics and the free press.

• There should be adequate regard for democracy and the rule of law. Emergency powers must be exercised under strict oversight, subject to periodic review by the legislature and effective judicial scrutiny to ensure they align with the stated objectives.

• The right to life, the ban on torture, and the concept of legality in criminal law are absolute and universal protections that cannot be waived, not even during national emergencies. For cases involving alleged abuses of rights that cannot be waived away, regular courts should still have the authority to act.

• Since state and non-state actors are more likely to violate rights during emergencies, investigating allegations of violations swiftly and effectively is necessary. Perpetrators must be brought to justice, and victims must be provided with protection and effective remedies.

• Dispensation of justice must adhere to the most basic standards of justice, as outlined in the principles of legality and the rule of law. Criminal trials and convictions can only take place in a court of law.

• Emergency declarations should not be used as a pretext to violate any laws against discrimination based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender individuality, (dis)ability, ethnocultural and religious background, political affiliation, social origin, property ownership, birth, or other status.

Due to COVID-19 threats, several nations resorted to extraordinary measures – partial/nationwide lockdowns grounded in the rule of law and provisions in human rights soft law norms and standards – according to the Siracusa Principles and ICCPR. Public health sections of the principles provide recommendations for acceptable restrictions on rights to contain the spread of infectious diseases by outlining the criteria for limiting civil and political rights to meet specific public aims. Since their inception in 1984, the principles have been applied in treating tuberculosis patients and past epidemics (Todrys, Howe, and Amon 2013). During pandemics, the criteria of dire need, significance, rationality, equitable implementation, the least-restrictive approach, and procedural fairness have resulted in ethical approaches to constrain human rights. While halting international travel as part of measures under the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHRs) to curb international transmission of a disease, the IHRs require courteous treatment of travellers regarding their rights, liberties, respect, and the barest minimum level of discomfort. Restrictive measures – derogation of travellers’ right to movement – can be implemented in response to public health threats.

By enforcing laws for managing emergencies and penalties for violations, the OHCHR (2020) provides guidance. When less damaging tactics have failed, law enforcement officers can necessarily and reasonably employ force to ensure compliance effectively. The usage should comply with relevant international norms and best practices – the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, and the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Guidance on the Use of Less-Lethal Weapons by Law Enforcement. Also, military forces should not replace traditional police in most circumstances. In an exigent case that requires military involvement, their operations should be for brief durations under strict guidelines and civilian oversight as obtainable in a conventional civilian law enforcement system in line with international human rights law. Allegations of human rights breaches committed by law enforcement officers or military personnel, such as abuse of authority, arbitrary detention, misuse of force, or sexual and gender-based violence, must be thoroughly investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable without delay. However, sufficient evidence shows that the COVID-19 pandemic rapid spread poses severe risks to public health as infected carriers/patients risked easily infecting other individuals (Liu et al. 2020; Meskini et al. 2021; Shokoohi, Osooli, and Stranges 2020).

Hence, within the Siracusa and ICCPR framework, the Nigerian state legalised its powers to impose movement restrictions (lockdown) in response to the public health crisis arising from COVID-19. Following the increase in the number of cases to 81 after COVID-19 appeared in 10 states within a month of recording the index case, the legalisation was the enactment of COVID-19 Regulation, 2020 on 30 March 2020, under Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Quarantine Act 2004.² The act empowered the government to declare the COVID-19 pandemic an infectious disease and make regulations for enforcing the curfew to manage the pandemic – cessation of movement in Lagos State, neighbouring Ogun State, and the FCT, continuous operation of Lagos seaports, suspension of passenger aircraft, provision of relief supplies, and public compliance among others. While implementing the regulations commenced at the locations mentioned above, state-level authorities toed the federal path to enforce movement restrictions in their respective domains and manage the situations as they unfolded. As a result, law enforcement officers were deployed to enforce the restriction within the extraordinary powers granted to them by the law and human rights norms during an emergency.

COVID-19 policing and state malfeasance

Within the framework of the Siracusa Principles, the ICCPR, Article 12 of ICESCR, and Chapter 2 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, task forces were created to coordinate the restrictions and health interventions for COVID-19. Authorities gave police the mandate to maintain public safety, prevent the spread of false information and rumours, respond to medical emergencies, and maintain public order (Nigeria Police Force 2020). Despite the directives, the officers’ conduct violated expected professional policing standards and individuals’ rights (see Table 1) under the guise of emergency measures to contain the pandemic and enforce health and safety rules. At the same time, attempts to seek redress were mostly ignored (Bassey 2020).

Table 1. Timeline of selected incidents of human rights breaches by state agents.

Date (2020)	Location	Description of incident
31 March	Abuja	Assault causing injuries of road users by Nigerian Army (NA) officers for defying the restriction order.
1 April	Delta	Assault of a journalist by a convoy of military officers for recording the officers’ involvement in the lockdown enforcement.
3 April	Delta	Threats by NA officers vowing to rape and infect women with HIV in Warri, Delta state, for daring to confront officers deployed to enforce the lockdown.
6 April	Abia	Erroneous shooting of a civilian by a police officer while chasing and trying to shoot another civilian on sight for disobeying the orders.
7 April	Abia	Killing of a civilian for disobeying the orders.
8 April	Kaduna	Killing of four civilians for violating the orders.
8 April	Kaduna	Injury of 17 people due to their violent confrontation with police personnel for disobeying the orders.
18 April	Osun	Assault of a woman by police personnel for violating the orders by coming out of her house to get food items.
17 April	Abia	Killing of one person by a police officer in Ebem Ohafia for violating the orders.
20 April	Jigawa	Erroneous killing of a civilian by the police while trying to disperse people who gathered in a local market to trade.

Source: Author’s compilation from Onuh (2021).

During the first 14 days of restriction, the NHRC, in its report on COVID-19, recorded 101 cases of human rights violation across 24 states − 18 extrajudicial killings, 19 cases of illegal property confiscation, 23 incidents of unlawful arrest, 33 cases of torture and inhumane treatment, and four incidents of gender-based violence. The report indicated that the police personnel are responsible for 90% of these cases, followed by the Army personnel. Within the second phase of the lockdown, spanning another 14 days, there were another six cases of extrajudicial killing and 22 incidents of additional human rights breaches – including torture, gender-based violence, illegal arrest, and extortion. In addition to police abuse, there were fears over the deployment of military personnel and the possibility of disproportionate use of lethal force to enforce the lockdown (Iweze 2020).

Furthermore, previous studies on pandemic policing in Nigeria have observed gross human rights abuse in the form of police extortion and police violence. Aborisade and Gbahabo (2021) examined the encounters of police and health workers during the Lagos and Ogun States restrictions. A sizable proportion of participants (62 health workers) were detained and exposed to verbal and physical abuse, intimidation, and delay at checkpoints. In preventing police violence, bribery proved more effective than the presentation of identification documents. Those who refused to bribe were subjected to verbal hostility and physical abuse – hitting (with or without weapons), slapping, kicking, pushing, and flogging. In the studies by Shodunke et al. (2022) and Shodunke, Oladipupo, Adeoti, et al. (2023) of police bribery and violence during the lockdown in Ilorin, Kwara State, participants shared stories of police brutality, including verbal abuse, attempted sexual harassment, and physical assault. Police officers’ intent to extort led to violent interactions with commuters. Twenty-five out of 37 people who disobeyed the curfew directives experienced extortion and bribery to help them move across communities, cities, and states. Their opinions validated allegations of extortionate policing during the lockdown.

In Aborisade (2022), women detailed their experiences of police sexual violence – physical and sexual abuse – unprovoked words, gestures, signals, and symbols during the enforcement of the curfew in Lagos and Ogun States. Some women, unaware of the orders guiding the lockdown enforcement, felt compelled to trade sexual favours for their freedom, while others grudgingly accepted the officers’ sexual advances in exchange for speedy passage through the checkpoints. Similarly, 71 individuals recruited in Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Imo, and other states by Aborisade (2021) who felt police enforcement of COVID-19 measures violated their rights mentioned a wide range of police aggression – including threats of physical violence, hostility, intimidation, extortion, and punishment. The female victims experienced sexual harassment, assault, and unwelcome sexual approaches. In addition to police violence, the clampdown on the press was another hostile side of the state. Appearing to be a crackdown against the media coverage of the lockdown, a reporter for the Sun newspaper was detained and charged under the Ebonyi State Coronavirus and Other Dangerous Infectious Diseases and Related Matters Law 005 of 2020 for covering disease outbreak in a manner critical of the government (Eze 2020).

While covering the abuse of Uvwie, Delta State residents who were accused of violating the curfew order, security personnel assaulted Michael Ikeogwu, Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, and Mathew Omonigho, the Daily Post’s correspondent in the state. Similarly, The Media Foundation for West Africa (2020) reported that eight journalists have been punished or imprisoned on six consecutive occasions for reporting various COVID-19-related government actions. The human rights breaches against suspected violators of the stay-at-home order simmered into state-sponsored repressive acts. Abuse of office and executive recklessness sparked the extrajudicial demolition of two hotels for flouting the curfew order in River State (Orjinmo 2020). Special Task Forces are sometimes established with absolute authority to implement curfew regulations, leading to the whipping, arrests, and even deaths of violators. Hence, the actions of state authorities and security forces constitute gross human rights violations and repression, which also manifested in the maltreatment of journalists who covered the involvement of security forces in enforcing the stay-at-home order. The authorities capitalised on the lockdown order to harass, illegally arrest, and jail journalists and to stifle whistleblowers who could potentially expose government excesses. Press freedom during the pandemic was a charade despite the democratic ideals the state claims to be committed to. Misconduct by security forces complicated the dilemmas of public non-compliance vis-à-vis security forces’ interventions in containing the pandemic. The incidents hindered the achievement of the curfew objectives. Despite the countrywide closure, the interstate movement continued as usual since many people ‘facilitated’ their way through the checkpoints with inducements. The closure provided opportunities for overt extortion by law enforcement, already plagued by the pervasiveness of ‘normalized corrupt practices’ – checkpoints turned into cashpoints (Onuoha, Ezirim, and Onuh 2021; Shodunke 2023). Hence, the lack of public trust and cooperation central to effective policing worsened the debilitating image of police during the lockdown. As Carey (2010) argued, responsive repression directly responds to any challenge against the state’s authority. Such actions emerge to weaken the opposition and mobilisation of civilians who desire a change in the status quo.

For every opposition, there is an act of repression (Grasse et al. 2021). Misconduct and human rights violations by the security forces while executing the state’s COVID-19 lockdown orders represent typical repression as a response to public disobedience to the order. The repression becomes responsive to quell further disobedience. In effect, The Ebonyi State governor ordered the security forces under his command to ‘shoot on sight’ anyone who entered the state, violating the governor’s executive order, and refused the 14-day compulsory detention in the isolation centre (Adegbamigbe 2020). Such an order typically illustrates repression emboldening the ‘abusive’ law enforcement agents already tainted with records of human rights violations. Continued restriction of individuals occasioning socioeconomic hardship and stress exacerbated a change in the status quo – the desire to violate lockdown order and return to normalcy, hence resulting in repression in the form of misuse of COVID-19 emergency (police) powers against civilians during the pandemic.

Despite Nigeria’s signing of the Siracusa Principles, its deployment of military personnel for mere police duties further exemplified its repressive style of managing public safety concerns. The security forces (police) executing COVID-19 regulations failed to appropriately punish curfew violators in line with dignity, proportionality, and respect enshrined in the principles. Rather, they exploited disobedience to perpetrate extortion and violence (Shodunke 2023). The state’s refusal to investigate complaints of police violence during the pandemic and to punish culpable officers signals disinterest in fully abiding by the principles. While the violations threatened public health and undermined the practicality of protecting human rights guaranteed in national and international human rights laws, the state’s repression further illustrates the illegitimacy and the government’s coercive stance in public administration. Beyond the containment of COVID-19, the rule of law as a component of democracy is hindered under the pretext of national security. The continued repression of dissent is understandable in the government’s stance on human rights while addressing security threats and political offences (Salihu, Abdulbaqi, and Shodunke 2022; Shodunke 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Noteworthily, former Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari, in his speech during the Nigerian Bar Association’s Annual Conference in 2017, maintained that the rule of law should be subject to national security. According to Adeola and Ademola (2018, 198), Buhari stated:

Rule of Law must be subject to the supremacy of the nation’s security and national interest. Our apex court has had cause to adopt a position on this issue in this regard, and it is now a matter of judicial recognition that where national security and public interest are threatened, or there is a likelihood of their being threatened, the individual rights of those allegedly responsible must take second place, in favor of the greater good of society.

While the statement above represents the state’s bid to achieve national security objectives, even if the pursuance is detrimental to upholding human rights, it tacitly supports the state’s passivity in preserving human rights. Hence, the promotion of the rule of law and human rights becomes far-fetched. The government has stifled the civic space, freedom of the press, and right to information over public opinion on the state’s handling of security concerns – separatist agitation. It clashed with a microblogging platform, Twitter, and Nigerians using the platform following Twitter’s deletion of Buhari’s tweet about the unbecoming behaviour of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) perceived to threaten national security. According to Nweke (2023, 314), the tweet referencing the 1967–1970 civil war in which millions of people were killed goes thus:

Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War. Those of us in the fields for 30 months who went through the war will treat them in the language they understand.

As the statement above signalled a warning to the separatists, it communicated the government’s interest in suppressing them with violence and the use of immoderate force – a communication that violated Twitter’s rules and policies and was thus deleted by Twitter. As a retaliation to what could be termed a challenge against the president, the government eventually banned the platform, signalling a deepening suppression of fundamental rights in the country. The ban outraged many users who rely on the platform for insightful socio-political discussion and economic engagements. Also, the state’s disregard for the rule of law manifested in the criminal prosecution of high-profile individuals and disobedience to court rulings, where bail applications of Former National Security Adviser Col. Sambo Dasuki and IPOB’s leader Nnamdi Kanu were denied on the basis of preserving national security.

Democracy, human rights and public health in Nigeria

In a functional democracy, the state protects and advances its citizens’ political and social well-being and the government provides public goods and protects the citizens against any potential harm, as Montesquieu argued. Under a social order based on equality, the rule of law, human rights, economic opportunity, and civic engagement, democracy prevents the state’s oppression (Eko-Akingbesote 2021). It entrenches the political separation of power and checks and balances to avert governmental arbitrariness. Hence, the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, a country with over 200 million people, obligates the government to provide dividends of democracy in the form of social amenities, economic development, security, and upholding human rights. International human rights conventions provide that the right to health and adequate healthcare is a human right. Article 12 of the ICESCR – an important mechanism emphasising the right – provides that ‘everyone shall have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’.³ The right covers containment and prevention of diseases, availability of clean water, sanitation and nutrition, and prompt and equitable access to quality healthcare goods and services.

Other international conventions underscore the importance of the right to health - Article 5(e) of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 16 of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Hence, states must take necessary measures to guarantee timely access to healthcare and effective medical attention, and to control epidemics. Although the extent to which a state can fulfil the human right to the highest attainable standard of health depends on its available resources, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of promoting this right in ensuring the fulfilment of other human rights, such as civil and political rights (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2000). Nationally, Chapter 2 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution and Nigeria’s National Health Insurance Scheme Act of 1999 guarantees the right to health and healthcare services. From the preceding, effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic and treatment of infected individuals have become obligatory for the Nigerian government. COVID-19 burdening the healthcare system’s capacity posed a threat not only to the lives of infected patients but also to the fundamental right to life and the ability to obtain healthcare for individuals who still require treatment for other ailments (Spadaro 2020).

However, containment and treatment have been problematic due to challenges in the public healthcare system, which lacks the isolation facilities and access to diagnostic supplies necessary to meet the growing needs of vulnerable persons and patients who are already infected with COVID-19 and need admission to critical care units for treatment (Shodunke et al. 2022). Diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, meningitis, stroke, tuberculosis, and cardiovascular illnesses are frequent among the vulnerable population and strain the current healthcare infrastructure. Health officials have indicated a severe scarcity of hospital beds due to the rising number of confirmed cases of COVID-19, forcing many patients to receive treatment at home. Several states struggled to provide treatment facilities around May 2020, even though the number of isolation facilities and the capacity of intensive care units in the country were expanding (Ohia and Salawu 2020). At the height of COVID-19 infections, the country’s resident doctors had an industrial action over the government’s refusal to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline health workers and reimbursement for statutory hazard allowances, as originally agreed upon. This situation further aggravated the government’s inability to contain the pandemic effectively. With the increase in reported cases, the government attempted to reduce healthcare funding, which could impair response efforts and the overall healthcare system. The recent fiscal allocation of 592.16 billion for health representing 4.52% of the entire budget in 2021 is below the 15% minimum standard set by the African Union in Abuja in 2001 (the Abuja Declaration; Shodunke et al. 2022). The lack of political leadership to sufficiently equip the system is exacerbated by this development.

However, government authorities have made efforts to curb and prevent the spread of the disease. Following the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) issued a new alert on 7 January 2020, and created the National Coronavirus Preparedness Group (NCPG). The NCPG was mandated to coordinate the preparedness actions, increase in-country diagnostic capacity through the three existing NCDC molecular laboratory networks, and study existing infectious disease treatment centres. After recording the disease’s index case, the national multisectoral Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) was activated at the third highest response level, which is reserved for national health emergencies that require national coordination and the deployment of all available resources (Oyebanji et al. 2021). To assist the overall efforts, the government committed 500 billion naira to the Coronavirus fund (Babatunde, Aborode, and Agboola 2021). However, these interventions were insufficient to effectively strengthen the healthcare system to handle COVID-19 threats. Beyond the health catastrophes of COVID-19, the lockdowns have adversely impacted the socioeconomic rights of individuals, particularly disadvantaged and vulnerable people who had little or no social safety net against unprecedented economic shutdowns resulting from an emergency.

In 2020, many nations – two-thirds of countries – experienced disruptions in the immunisation services for children and adults, leading to 47,000 fatalities from malaria compared to 2019 and an additional 100,000 deaths from tuberculosis (World Health Organization 2021a, 2021b, 2020). Two years later, the pandemic continued to severely impact livelihoods as the number of individuals experiencing severe hunger increased by almost 200 million compared to 2019, while an additional 80 million people went into extreme poverty (United Nations, 2022). Educationally, the rights of children and even adults have been adversely impacted as affected countries introduced nationwide closure of schools, creating a gap between the high-income and low-income populations regarding access to technology that could facilitate learning during the lockdown. As a result, around 463 million students, representing one-third of all children, could not access digital or broadcast learning (Benner et al., 2020). To protect the health of students and staff of the schools, Nigeria’s Ministry of Education ordered the closure of federal schools on 19 March 2020 (Amorighoye 2020). State-level response in the context of education followed the same path in which many states considered the closure of schools in the third week of March 2020, hence leaving 40 million students − 91% primary and secondary students and 9% students of higher academic institutions – out of school (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2020). Also, the inequality gap in access to education widened, in which economically disadvantaged students could not afford the digital-based solutions introduced to continue learning and teaching and exacerbated illiteracy amidst the fact that the country accounts for 20% of the global out-of-school population Shodunke and Oladipupo 2022).

Conclusion and implications for policy

While previous studies have explored COVID-19 policing and human rights, little is known about whether or not the policing contravenes the Siracusa Principles and the ICCPR standards in managing extraordinary situations – such as COVID-19. Thus, this article examines how COVID-19 policing in Nigeria violates the principles. It contributes to understanding human rights conditions amidst the pandemic in two ways. Firstly, within the framework of the 1984 Siracusa Principles and ICCPR, it examines the permissibility of the restriction of movement as supported by the emergency power the Nigerian authorities explored – the 2020 COVID-19 Regulations. Secondly, this article highlights actions of state agents – repression and human rights breaches that violate the standards set by Siracusa for implementing a restriction to contain public health threats.

This article argued that given the Siracusa Principles, adopting partial/nationwide lockdowns was appropriate to address COVID-19 threats, which threatened public health and human survival. The regulation aligned with Article 4 of ICCPR and the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, science, non-discrimination, human dignity, feasibility of objectives, briefness of timeframe, and the right to necessities of life and social protection. Although insufficient, the government provided relief materials and bailout packages to the poorest households and businesses to cushion the restriction-imposed hardship. However, the police intervention to enforce the restriction was characterised by human rights breaches – extortions, assaults, extrajudicial killings, and illegal detentions of civilians. The breaches stifled the media space as journalists were illegally arrested and detained due to misuse of emergency power, police use of lethal force, and lack of adherence to the guidelines for enforcing the restriction. The breaches – unjustified deployments of military personnel and refusal to investigate the human rights breaches – violate the Siracusa standards on the use of law enforcement agents to enforce restriction measures, punishment of violators of the measures, effective and swift investigation, and punishment of human right violators during the pandemic.

Hence, the refusal cast the Nigerian state in a bad light and revealed its hostile side, further amplifying the misuse of emergency powers. Also, it portends dangers to public health, human rights, civic space, democratic ideals, and the country’s foreign image in the adherence to international human rights standards for managing emergencies. Hence, the Nigerian state must address the legitimacy and compliance challenges within the ambits of human rights, democracy, public health, and security sector reform. The state must protect the citizens during and outside pandemics. Based on the doctrine of er ga omnes, upholding human rights through civilian oversight of security forces’ interventions in enforcing movement restrictions is necessary for the state. While COVID-19 is not the first pandemic and will not be the last, adequate regard for international human rights laws and policing guidelines in line with the Siracusa Principles is central to the successful containment of community transmission of the epidemic. Human rights education should be sufficiently inculcated in policing. Traditional and pandemic policing must be devoid of extortion, brutality, and other forms of misconduct. Cases of citizens’ violation of lockdown directives and human rights breaches by state actors must be investigated in a timely, thorough and effective manner, and culpable individuals must be punished in line with the extant laws to instil public confidence and boost legitimacy.

For democracy and the rule of law to thrive, the press must be allowed to operate independently. After easing restrictions in future emergencies, there should be discussions on police intervention and (non)compliance with the Siracusa Principles. Authorities attempting police reform should consider disciplining culpable officers and rewarding deserving ones. Also, adequate resources for equipment and funding should be pandemic management priorities. While upholding human rights and reforming the security sector, focusing on the socioeconomic and medical essentials of containing pandemics is important. During future pandemics, the government must provide sufficient socioeconomic necessities and preparation to ensure satisfactory compliance with restriction measures and prevent avoidable negative citizen–police contacts due to non-compliance, mostly motivated by the search for economic survival. Medically, there should be sufficient investment in the public health sector through funding, decent remuneration, welfare packages for healthcare workers, equipment, training, and medical infrastructure, which will improve the healthcare sector in quality of service delivery and effective containment of future epidemics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Notes on contributors

Aliu Oladimeji Shodunke

Aliu Oladimeji Shodunke is a PhD student in Criminology in the Department of Sociology and Criminology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests are International Criminology, Policing & Police Affairs, Violence, and Peace & Statebuilding. His recent scholarships can be found in leading journals such as Policing and Society, Third World Quarterly, International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, and International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, among others.

Notes

1 United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, The Siracusa Principles on the limitation and derogation provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Section I.A.12 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex. Geneva, Switzerland: UNHCR, 1985, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4672bc122.html

2 Quarantine Act, CAP Q2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004 is a legislation that provides for the regulation of the imposition of quarantine and the prevention of the outbreak of dangerous infectious diseases into, spread in and transmission from Nigeria.

3 The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a multilateral agreement adopted by the United Nations General Assembly obligating state parties to work towards the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) such as the right to work, the right to health care, the right to an education, and the right to a minimum standard of life. See https://treaties.un.org/doc/treaties/1976/01/19760103%2009-57%20pm/ch_iv_03.pdf.