Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, former Minister of External Affairs, continues his treatise on the imperative of disobeying laws that are manifestly unjust. He also states that it is incumbent on governments to carry the governed along. He also explains why the governed should not be docile in taking up the challenge to force governments to deliver good governance as the Guest Speaker at the Second Convocation Lecture of Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria, last week.
Obligations
I have already alluded to the fact that in all systems, democratic, dictatorial, parliamentary or presidential, monarchical or non-monarchical, theocratic or secular, the government exercises enormous powers over the people. In democracies, this power is voluntarily surrendered to governments at periodic elections which are free, fair and transparent. Under other systems, the power is seized from the people.
Whichever way it is, the concept of power revolves around the enforced claims of the obligations which citizens owe the state. Let me be as categorical as I can be: the citizen is under an absolute obligation to respect the law. As far back as 2675 B. C., Ptahhotep, a Prime Minister in ancient Egypt, laid it down as a princip1e: “to resist him that is set in authority is evil.” When, however, we feel that the law is manifestly unjust, not just unjust but so wickedly unjust that it must be disobeyed, then that law must be disobeyed. We must avoid becoming like those Martin Luther King described as “the.. moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” However, it is the state’s reaction to the civil disobedience in the form of trial and imprisonment which highlights the unjustness of the law.
When Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King were faced with unjust laws which they felt should not be obeyed, they broke those laws, waited to be arrested and went to jail without complaining.
Starting with the Augustinian premise that “an unjust law is no law at all”, Martin Luther King submitted that “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.” He continued: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment , is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
It is the repeated jailing that brings the unjustness of the laws into front line consciousness and eventually leads to the abrogation of the unjust laws. The point should be made absolutely clear. The very fact of the unjustness of a law does not grant immunity from prosecution to those who break that law. We are under a moral obligation to challenge unjust laws. The state is under a legal and political obligation to enforce the law, even unjust laws.
It is the public outrage aroused by the prosecution of the consciences of the nation, prosecution which is erroneously termed, persecution, which sensitizes the nation to the need to change the laws. In his famous letter from Birmingham jail, King had argued eloquently that “non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.. There is a type of constructive, non-violent tension which is necessary for growth.”
Martin Luther King did not advocate a stay-at-home action or a boycott of white businesses or white controlled buses only. He did not restrict his action to the courts alone. All those would not have led to the “non-violent tension which is necessary for growth”
Rights
Earlier on, I have used the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to identify specific rights to which citizens are entitled and which the state is under an obligation to provide. There are three other Conventions which have added to the basket of entitlements. These are the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further more, there have now been instituted (a) An annual Human Development Report and (b) An annual World Development Indicators. These two documents complement dozens of annual reports -. put out by the United Nations Specialised Agencies, Non-Governmental Organisations and Civil Society. Organisations.
These Reports identify landmarks by which progress or non-progress can be measured. The following are some of the landmarks: 1) Human Development index,
2) Human and income poverty index, 3) Commitment to health: resources, access and services, 4) Water, Sanitation and nutritional status, 5) Leading global and health crises and risks, 6) Survival: Progress and setbacks, 7) Commitment to Education: public spending, 8) Literacy and enrolment, 9) Technology: diffusion and creation, 10) Economic performance, 11) Inequality in income or consumption, 12) Priorities in public spending, 13) Gender-related development index , 14) Gender empowerment measure, 15) Gender inequality in education, 16) Gender inequality in economic activity, 17) Women’s political participation. I do not intend to give you the impression that these are the only sub-heads around which these annual reports revolve. These reports are more extensive than the sub-themes which I have just listed.
Even though comparative classification is a useful analytical and research tool, its use in these reports have tended to have the effect of shocking and shaming nations, whether that is its intention or not. The over all comparative classification revolves around three broad categories. The first category is titled High Human Development. The second category is titled Medium Human Development. The third category is titled Low Human Development. Presumably, those in the first two categories could pat themselves on the back for achieving a desirable status. But for any state to be listed among the Low Human Development category must rank as a failure.
At independence, social scientists played with polite and diplomatic terminology graduating from developed and underdeve1oped nations to developed and developing nations. At that time, it was felt that it was politically incorrect to refer to states as underdeveloped. By adopting the terminology “developing”, it was felt that there was some sense of positive movement that needed to be recognised and encouraged. It was not to deny that there were states which were underdeveloped, but for a while, it at least appeared that the governments of the newly independent states were trying to better the lot of their people. Four decades later, the need to call a spade a spade, to shock and shame, is very justified.
The second methodology adopted is to present results of research in tabular form where countries are ranked according to achievement or non-achievement in carrying out their obligations to their citizens. The net result is quite devastatingly effective as one could tell at a glance the height of achievement or the depth of failure relative to other countries.
I would now like to situate our country, Nigeria, using the classifications already indicated above. There is going to be extensive and prolonged use of comparative statistical data as a necessity in order to drive home the point as regards the magnitude of the problem that exists. For example, if Nigeria spends Nx million on a health issue, the amount, of itself, does not prove anything. It does not tell us whether that is sufficient or not. But when combined with statistics showing the magnitude of the problem, then the conclusion speaks for itself.
The first thing to notice is that Nigeria has been consistently classified as among the Low Human Development nations, sharing that group with Pakistan, Togo, Congo, Lesotho, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Yemen, Madagascar etc.... Ranked above Nigeria in the Medium Human Development category are countries such as
Cameroon, Sudan, Swaziland, Ghana, Botswana, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Cape Verde, Guyana, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon to mention a few.
In terms of Human Development index, not only is Nigeria classified among the Low Human Development Group as earlier indicated, her position is 151 out of 177 nations.
In terms of life expectancy, a Nigerian is expected at birth to live for 52 years, compared with Yemen at 60 yrs, Pakistan at 61 yrs, Ghana at 58 yrs, Nepa1 at 60 yrs, Iran at 70 yrs, Palestine at 72 yrs, Cape Verde at 70 yrs, Vietnam at 69 yrs, Sao Tome and Principe at 70 yrs, Morocco at 69 yrs to mention a rew. Nigeria falls below the average for developing countries, is the same as the average for least developed countries, but is above the average for sub-Saharan Africa.
In terms of adult literacy rate, (an adult being defined as 15 yrs and above), Nigeria is rated at 67% compared to Kenya at 84%, Zimbabwe at 90%, Congo at 89%, Lesotho at 81%, Swaziland at 81%, Ghana at 74%, Botswana at 79%, Namibia at 83%, Sao Tome and Principe at 83%, Gabon at 71%, Mongolia at 98%, Equatorial Guinea at 84%, Cape Verde at 76%, and Guyana at 97%. Even the occupied Palestine is rated at 90%. Nigeria falls below the average for Developing countries, but is above the averages for the least developed countries and süb-Saharan Africa.
In terms of combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools, Nigeria is rated at 45%, compared to Zimbabwe at 58%, Togo at 67%, Lesotho at 65%, Uganda at 71%Cameroon at 56%, Swaziland at 61%, Botswana at 70%, Namibia at 71%, Gabon at 74%, Sao Tome and Principe at 62%, Equatorial Guinea at 58%, Cape Verde at 73%, Palestine at 79%, Nigeria is below the average for Developing countries, but has the same as the averages for the Least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa.
In terms of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita, Nigeria is rated at $860.00 compared with Zimbabwe at $2400.00, Lesotho at $2420.00, Togo at $1480.00, Cameroon at $2000.00, Swaziland at $4550.00, Comoros at $1690.00, Ghana at $2130.00, Botswana at $8170.00, Namibia at $6210.00, Gabon at $6590.00, Sao Tome and Principe at $1317.00, Equatorial Guinea at $30,130.00 and Cape Verde at $5000.00. Nigeria is way below the average for developing countries which is $4,054.00, below the average for Least developed countries which is $1307 and even below the average for sub-Saharan Africa which is $1790.00.
In terms of population below income poverty line, Nigeria is rated at 70% on or below $1.00 a day compared to Kenya at 23%, Zimbabwe at 36%, Lesotho at 36%, Cameroon at 17%, Ghana at 45%, Botswana at 24% and Iran at less than 2%. When the figure is raised to $2.00 or less, Nigeria has 91% of its population living on $2.00 or less compared to Kenya at 59%, Zimbabwe at 64%, Lesotho at 56%, Cameroon at 51%, Ghana at 79%, Botswana at 50%, Namibia 56%.
In these annual reports, there is a category called Demographic Trends which I would prefer to title social volatility index. This is defined as statistics which shows whether the type, mix, and location of population has the potential to destabilise or stabilise the society.
This piece continues tomorrow and goes further to explain why governments should respect the governed
