Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in Humanitarian Action: Seven Practical Steps to Humanitarian Integrity in Nigeria

by Philip C. Aka

In the sense it is used here, humanitarian integrity is another name for humanitarian wellbeing. It is the flipside of humanitarian catastrophe, inviting humanitarian intervention to minimize atrocities that take place during an emergency. One such emergency that formed the backdrop of the CIHA Blog workshop in Ghana October 18-20, 2015, was the civil war in Nigeria from 1967 to 1970, marked by untold human suffering, disease, and death. On the eve of the war’s end in January of 1970:

• Much of Biafraland had turned into a mass graveyard with the death of over 3 million people through strafing from Nigerian lethal weapons, diseases, and starvation;
• About 2 million people depended on food relief supplies, including about 700,000 refugees in camps who were completely dependent on food aid;
• Another 3 million refugees were crowded into a 2,500-square-kilometer enclave in which not only food but medicine, housing, and clothing were in short supply; and
• The Biafran economy, before the war ranked among the fastest-growing economies in the world, was in shambles with many cities and villages in ruins and schools, hospitals, and communication facilities destroyed.

Although not on the scale of the Biafran war, today Nigeria is still going through humanitarian troubles in the country with the rise of Boko Haram, a terrorist group based in the northeast of the country that claims an extremist Islamic ideology. Since inaugurating its violent phase in 2009, the group has killed or maimed over 20,000 people, displaced millions of others from their homes, and kidnapped hundreds. As if this is not bad enough, there are still unresolved issues facing the country related to the Biafran civil war that supposedly ended 45 years ago, revolving around the renewed agitations within and outside Nigeria for restoration of the separate statehood of Biafra snuffed out by Nigerian military weapons in 1970.

This piece proposes seven practical steps to humanitarian integrity in Nigeria. For the best result, all seven steps must be synchronized or implemented in tandem, rather than implemented sequentially. Some of the solutions may arguably apply to other African countries currently experiencing humanitarian heartaches of the kind Nigeria is going through. The seven fateful steps are: (1) take individual human rights seriously, (2) take collective human rights seriously, (3) take decentralization and devolution of power seriously, (4) take punishment for human rights abuses seriously, (5) make reparations for past human rights abuses, (6) stem the influence of religion in politics, and (7) elect competent governments, able and willing to discharge the foregoing responsibilities.

The first step is for the Nigerian government to take individual human rights seriously. The individual human rights that, if violated, will contribute to set the ground for humanitarian catastrophe are political and civil (political-civil) rights, as well as economic, social, and cultural (socioeconomic) rights. Political-civil rights are guarantees of freedom with which governments must not interfere. These guarantees include the right to life, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy and family life, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of expression and the press, peaceful assembly and association; and freedom of movement. Socioeconomic rights are material-based guarantees of freedom that require governmental preparation for the enjoyment of these rights. Without such preparation, the realization of these rights is made difficult or impossible. These guarantees include access to education, healthcare, food, shelter, and clean water; the right to work, including protection against unemployment; right to form and join trade unions; and the right to social security, among others.

To prevent the conditions that, dubiously, help to set the stage later for humanitarian disaster, in addition to individual rights in all categories, the Nigerian government must also, as a matter of law, protect collective (or group) rights. These collective rights are guarantees which the individual may enjoy as a member of a particular society. They include the equality of peoples, the right to existence and self-determination, the right to free disposal of natural wealth and resources, the right to development, the right to international peace and security, and the right to a clean environment. Because of the multi-ethnic character of Nigeria, collective rights have always been critical in the country. For ethnic peace in the Niger Delta (the marginalized epicenter of the country’s oil wealth) and other trouble spots in the country, the Nigerian national government must heed the injunction in the international bill of human rights, regarding economic self-determination, that “[i]n no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

In addition to the above two steps, to prevent the conditions capable of leading to humanitarian disaster, the Nigerian government can do more to decentralize powers rather than concentrate it, as it does now, at Abuja. Such devolution is critical, given the status of Nigeria as a patchwork of numerous ethnic groups, some of which, like the Igbo, Hausa, Fulani, and Yoruba, with populations running into tens of millions, are sizable enough to form their own separate countries. For how much longer can the country continue to buck the global trend toward power-sharing and devolution? Why would a country like Nigeria, included in comparative politics literature among examples of a federal system, continue to operate, as it has done since the end of the civil war in 1970, like a unitary system, at a time when unitary systems like China and the United Kingdom, through extensive devolution of power to constituent units, are seeking the benefits of decentralized government without necessarily establishing federalism?

Having fulfilled the three steps recounted above, Nigeria must take seriously punishment for human rights abuses by holding individuals and public officials responses for offenses in place of the current culture of impunity or evasion of responsibility for human rights abuses. Nigeria has a history of not punishing individuals and officials in the country for abuses of the rights of individuals from certain groups, specifically the Igbo. Such systematic violation of the rights of certain people on grounds of immutable characteristics, such as ethnicity and religion, set the ground for conflicts that, in turn, invite humanitarian relief to correct those problems.

Related to step four above is reparations for past human rights abuses. Reparation means to repair a victim or put that victim back, as much as possible, to his or her pre-damage condition. The term also connotes restitution or the return to a victim of something wrongfully taken from that victim. Like with punishment for human rights violations, Nigeria has a poor history of reparations for past human rights abuses, with possible negative ramifications for humanitarian integrity. Reparations for past violations will compel individuals or groups to think twice before they violate others’ individual and collective human rights. Conversely, the lack of reparation for past human rights abuses in Nigeria is probably among the reasons these abuses recur.

A sixth step Nigeria must take to promote humanitarian integrity in the country is to reduce as a matter of utmost urgency the disquieting influence of religion in politics that has taken place and continues to take place under the Fourth Republic since 1999. Although the murderous actions and rhetoric of Boko Haram have concentrated the attention of the Nigerian government and as well captured the global spotlight, religious fundamentalism of all types threatens the stability of the country. Prior to Boko Haram, twelve northern states adopted sharia codes beginning in 2000, and Boko Haram has criticized their “partial” implementation of sharia. Although the times and settings are different, if not properly handled, Boko Haram has the capacity to destabilize the country and endanger humanitarian integrity in northeastern Nigeria and across the country, in a manner that calls to mind the Biafran war nearly 50 years ago.

Last but not least, to promote humanitarian integrity in the country, Nigerians must elect competent governments able and willing to handle the six assignments above. Since the civil war, Nigeria unfortunately has lacked competent governments. Until 1999, all governments in Nigeria, except for the period 1979 to 1983, were unaccountable military governments. Since 1999, Nigeria has witnessed its longest period under civilian rule since independence in 1960 with the air of freedom, departing from the repression of military rule, that these governments afford. However, the quality of rule so far has been poor, marked by corruption (the use of public trust for private ends), and embarrassingly little progress toward alleviation of poverty, compared to governments in other countries. It does not help matters that two of the leaders this period, one of who served two full terms in office, are retired army generals.

As used here, humanitarian integrity is a function of six factors that must be synchronized, rather than implemented sequentially, with a competent government as predicate. Although nothing resembling the tsunami scale of Biafra, 45 years after its civil war, humanitarian troubles remain a problem in Nigeria with possible spillover effect beyond the country given its status as the most populous state in Africa.

Philip C. Aka is Professor of Political Science, Chicago State University; Adjunct Professor of Law, IU McKinney School of Law—Indianapolis; Member of the Illinois Bar. Ph.D., Howard University; S.J.D. (expected May 2016), IU McKinney School of Law—Indianapolis; LL.M. (summa cum laude), Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis; J.D., Temple University School of Law; M.A. University of North Texas; B.A. (magna cum laude), Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.