Days of rage as definition of “peaceful protest”?, By Abdul Wahab Oyedokun

The movement has been rudderless in many cities where it has staged protests. Anarchy thus became the order of the day. It is abundantly clear that Omoyele Sowore, who is in the engine room of this movement, did not plan for a peaceful protest from the onset. He called for #endBadgovernanceinNigeria, #Days of Rage and #RevolutionNow. These inflated words are what are required to set the country on fire.

The events of the last few days in Nigeria remind us of the immutable words of Alf Ross: “like a harlot, natural law is at the disposal of everyone. The ideology does not exist which cannot be defined by appeal to the law of nature.”

Human rights originally developed from natural law theory.

Thus, the above flowery characterisation of natural law by Alf Ross perfectly describes the use to which some individuals in Nigeria today have put the term “Human Rights”  and particularly, the “right to peaceful protest.”
Jeremy Bentham corroborated Ross’ statement when he described “natural rights” as “simple nonsense… rhetorical nonsense – nonsense upon stilts.”

But if natural law, as opined by Jeremy Bentham, is a mere fiction which has no determinate meaning – a recipe for anarchy and a false sense of righteousness leading to political upheavals, then human rights is, today, anchored on positive laws as enshrined in our constitution and under international law.

What this means is that even ordinary citizens are now in a position to understand the basic elements of human rights principles. Unfortunately, the long years of military rule in Nigeria have affected the psyche of most of our people and thrown up, in the process, some self-styled human rights activists whose primary aim is to use the platform to achieve name recognition and for attaining social mobility in the society (which ordinarily, is not, on its own illegitimate) but without any regard for the basic assumptions and suppositions of human rights principles, laws and processes. The leader of the “Take it Back Movement” clearly falls into this category.

In the course of their protests, they cannot coerce or intimidate others to join them.  In this case, the “Take it Back Movement” of Omoyele Sowore, from the onset, has made clear the objective it sought to achieve, which is regime change. Section 1(2) of our Constitution states that Nigeria “shall not be governed nor shall any group of therefore, take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provision of the Constitution.”

Then, what is right to  peaceful protest under our Constitution?

You will need to undertake a joint reading of section 39 – Right to Freedom of Expression, Section 40 – Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association, and Section 41 – Right to Freedom of Movement. The principles expressed in these three sections of the Constitution are condensed to formulate the “Right to Peaceful Protest” under the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Any group of people that wishes to embark on a peaceful protest must have an identified set of leaders at each protest ground, with their contact addresses and phone numbers communicated to the police authorities for the purposes of coordination and security cover. Their set of demands must be clearly stated and measurable, and should fall within the constitutional responsibilities of those targeted in government. Their leaders are to address the assembly on the purpose and limits of their actions, in order to guide the participants.

In the course of their protests, they cannot coerce or intimidate others to join them.  In this case, the “Take it Back Movement” of Omoyele Sowore, from the onset, has made clear the objective it sought to achieve, which is regime change. Section 1(2) of our Constitution states that Nigeria “shall not be governed nor shall any group of therefore, take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provision of the Constitution.”

The movement has been rudderless in many cities where it has staged protests. Anarchy thus became the order of the day. It is abundantly clear that Omoyele Sowore, who is in the engine room of this movement, did not plan for a peaceful protest from the onset. He called for #endBadgovernanceinNigeria, #Days of Rage and #RevolutionNow. These inflated words are what are required to set the country on fire.

Having worked on their emotions, these protesters blocked roads, set public buildings on fire, looted and committed all sorts of crimes in the process.

When a citizen decides to levy war against his state, he is not exercising his human right but committing a crime. The leaders of the “Take it Back Movement” should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and the law should take its course. Nigeria is well-resourced to track the keyboard warriors who weaponised the protest rhetoric to achieve this clearly predictable bloody outcome.

No one can ascertain the set of demands this protest movement is putting forward. There are many versions in the public domain, some containing ridiculous demands meant to achieve the regime change objective. There is no evidence of the infiltration of the protest groups.

Anybody who claims otherwise is only trying to walk back. Again, we are yet to read any word of caution or advice from the influential section of the human rights community in Nigeria, to the leadership of this protest movement. Which law grants this group a licence to unleash terror and cause public disorder and anarchy? Rather it is waiting in the wings to take government up on any alleged violation of the rights of the protesters. It is acknowledged that human rights is the ultimate dividend of democracy and constitutionalism; but not an instrument of subversion and chaos.

Government, particularly the sub-national ones, including those initially grandstanding as if they are immune from the consequences of the protests, must work hard to address the plight of out-of-school children in their respective jurisdictions. They are a ready instrument in the hands of fake activists and disgruntled elements.

Failure to achieve elite consensus on major decisions affecting the nation has always created room for opportunistic behaviour for opposition elements, who will be happy to manipulate the masses on some key economic policies and thus weaponise their naivety on the subject matter. This is unpatriotic and deceitful. Those responsible for this mayhem have committed treason in disguise. They clearly anticipated and relished the outcome of these ill-advised violent protests, which have led to the loss of lives and property. When a citizen decides to levy war against his state, he is not exercising his human right but committing a crime. The leaders of the “Take it Back Movement” should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and the law should take its course. Nigeria is well-resourced to track the keyboard warriors who weaponised the protest rhetoric to achieve this clearly predictable bloody outcome.

Those outside Nigeria must also be properly documented and processed in accordance with the law.

Abdul Wahab Oyedokun writes from Abuja.