Paul Andrew GWAZA*

 

Abstract: The relation between Anti-terrorism and human rights Protection is rather complicated. Based on the practices in Africa, this article analyses the conflicts and contradictions between the two. While countering terrorism, governments have to take the duty of human rights protection as well. Rights are of key importance in preventing and countering terrorism. Integrating human rights construction into anti-terrorism mechanism is rather helpful in eliminating various moods of dissatisfaction which are easy to breed terrorism.

 

Keywords:  Anti-terrorism   Human Rights Protection    Africa

 

 

Discourses on anti-terrorism and human rights protection inhere with complexities and contending narratives that are influenced by national and international histories, geographies and cultures.¹ This paper seeks to represent and examine these competing narratives within the African context. It prefaces the discussion with conceptual clarification of terrorism, anti-terrorism and human rights, which are franchised not only on exhuming, reviving and resurrecting the ghosts of villains and heroes, but inspired and determined to hold sway over their respective turfs. The tendencies to impose immoderate standpoints in the propagation of these positions have led to the phenomenal surge in the analysis of the connections between human rights and anti-terrorism. While national and global engagements and applications of human rights ideals to antithetical phenomena such as terrorism have been obfuscated in contemporary time, consideration must be given to the dynamics that put peace, security and development in the foreground.[page]

 

It is within these contexts that this conversation situates the interactions between anti-terrorism and human rights protection. Firstly, it questions governmental obligations to human rights precepts in combating terrorism. Secondly, it inquires into the obligations of private and non-state actors to promote and protect human rights. Thirdly, it interrogates the nuances characterizing the discussion necessitating the militarized model of anti-terrorism in light of international human rights norms. 

 

 

 

It was Sun Tzu who wrote: “Kill one – frighten ten thousand.”² However, terrorism is a disputed concept because “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”³ and “today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s statesman.”⁴ In fact, the right to self-determination and wars of national liberation represent the duality of perceptions inherent in terrorism – human rights discourse. For example, a vilified villain under an autocratic regime will turn out to be a revered freedom fighter under a democratic dispensation.⁵ This is important in understanding the fluidity of terrorism to encompass the intentional use violence, or threat of violence against an instrumental target (e.g., person or thing) by government and private non-state actors in order to send to a primary target a threat of future violence, so as to coerce the key target through strong fear or anxiety in connection with a demanded political outcome.⁶ The 9/11 al-Qaida attacks on America have indeed influenced international understanding of terrorism.⁷[page]

 

The complacency of Africa towards anti-terrorism was revived with the 1998 al-Qaida bombings of the American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.⁸ Hence, the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism called on member states not to justify terrorism under any circumstances, and described it as:

 

    …any act which is a violation of the criminal laws of a State Party and which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury or death to, any person, any number or group of persons or causes or may cause damage to public or private property, natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage and is calculated or intended to:

 

    (i) Intimidate, put in fear, force, coerce or induce any government, body, institution, the general public or any segment thereof, to do or abstain from doing any act, or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint, or to act according to certain principles; or

 

    (ii) Disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service to the public or to create a public emergency; or

 

    (iii) Create general insurrection in a State.

 

It further provides that:

 

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1, the struggle waged by peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces shall not be considered as terrorist acts;

 

Certainly, acts of terrorism have tainted Africa’s image. For instance, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb has carried out terrorist operations in parts of northern and western Africa. Al-Shabaab has committed heinous acts of terror in Somalia, Uganda and Kenya.⁹ Boko Haram operates in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Chad, attacking churches, educational institutions, markets, motor parks, military and police installations, prisons and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.¹⁰ Al-Qaida attacked targeted interests across Africa, especially the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.¹¹[page]

 

Simply put, anti-terrorism is those defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military forces and civil agencies.¹² In mitigating the vulnerability of individuals to terrorism, African governments have adopted the over 13 UN anti-terrorism conventions,¹³ enacted legislation, established anti-terrorism agencies and collaborated under bilateral and multilateral arrangements to combat terrorism. It must be noted that the two anti-terrorism models that emerged in the post-9/11 new international security order are the law enforcement (criminal justice) and the military models. The law enforcement model is being deemphasized in favor of the military model that derogates human rights norms in favor of national security.  The law enforcement model places a premium on the prevention of the commission of the crime through intelligence or law enforcement means, and if prevention has failed, it emphasizes the apprehension, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators. The military model permits the pursuit of the enemy with the intent to kill. The enemy is only spared from being killed if he surrenders. In the event he surrenders and he qualifies as a Prisoner of War, then he may not be subject to sanction unless he has committed a war crime. Under the military model, such an enemy may be detained until the end of the war to prevent him from returning to the battlefield. Under the law enforcement model, the enemy is not normally detained after trial unless he has been convicted of a crime.

 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 calls on all member states to take steps in cooperation with other states to combat terrorism. The Resolution established the Counter Terrorism Committee to ensure compliance. UNSC Resolution 1540 created a committee to monitor the implementation of UNSCR 1373. These resolutions received wide compliance across member nations of the United Nations.¹⁴ For instance, some African constitutions prohibit the formation of religious-based political parties, and African parliaments have enacted laws entrenching stiffer anti-terrorism mechanisms.

 

 

The human rights project is a universal political project with wide implication for the propagation and entrenchment of liberal values.¹⁵ Despite the debate on whether we all conceive of human rights in the same sense or not as represented by the Universalist versus Relativist debate, naturalists consider human rights as given; the deliberative scholars conceive it as an agreed upon concept; to the protest scholars it is envisioned as a fought for concept; and the discourse scholars see it as a talked about concept.¹⁶[page]

 

Human rights are rights that inure to an individual by virtue of his or her being a member of the human race. They involve those rights that are held evenly by human beings notwithstanding the sex, race, nationality and economic background of the individual.¹⁷ In 1987, the United Nations resolved that human rights are rights that “are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot function as human beings.”¹⁸ These are rights that are guaranteed in constitution and not privileged on the whims of the state, state officials or individuals, and the state is charged to preserve and protect them or else violations would require compensation or reparation.¹⁹ While human rights include all rights enjoyed and asserted by all persons, fundamental human rights are rights entrenched in the constitution.²⁰

 

The trend across Africa is that governments have only recognized and guaranteed fundamental human rights as provided in constitutions. For instance, Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) provides for the right to life; right to dignity of the human person; right to personal liberty; right to fair hearing; right to private and family life; right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; right to freedom of expression and the press; right to peaceful assembly and association; right to freedom of movement; right to freedom from discrimination; right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria; and the law forbids compulsory acquisition of property without payment of prompt compensation.²¹ These are first generation rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). The conundrum is that the second and the third generation of rights are either not recognized or they are classified under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, rendering them non-justiciable. Myriad of excuses have been adduced for this constitutional misnomer. The Nigerian Constitution Drafting Committee reasoned that to impose obligations on government to protect Economic, Social and Cultural rights is unsound.²² In further justifying this arrangement, Professor Eze reasoned that because African states are underdeveloped it is futile to encourage litigation based on ESCR.²³ This argument is unjustifiable because Africa is a paradox of a rich continent inhabited by the poor owing to primitive accumulation by rapacious few elites. In fact, illicit financial flows (IFFs) from Africa to other countries amounted to the loss of over US$854 billion between 1970 and 2008, corresponding to a yearly average of about US$22 billion. The level of illicit financial outflows from Africa exceeds the official development assistance to the continent, which stood at US$46.1 billion in 2012.²⁴

 

The point must be made that “to the extent that socio-economic rights are not guaranteed, then to that extent will civil and political rights remain palliatives for the masses.” Thus, Nyerere observed that:[page]

 

    What freedom has our subsistence farmer? He scratches a bare living from the soil provided the rains do not fail; his children work at his side without schooling, medical care, or even good feeling. Certainly he has freedom to vote and to speak as he wishes. But these freedoms are much less real to him than his freedom to be exploited. Only if his poverty is reduced will his existing political freedom become properly meaningful and his rights to human dignity become a fact of human dignity.²⁵

 

The non-justiciability of ESCR is indeed “a paradoxical and hypocritical stance that renders [these countries] vulnerable to charges of engagement in a bogus public relations stunt.”²⁶ This is because as state parties to international human rights treaties, they are required to “take steps…to the maximum of [their] available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the . . . covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.”²⁷

 

 

There is no gainsaying the fact that terrorism is a challenge on the fundamental principles of any society by its attacks on the civil society, especially the media, civil society and the national economy (such as tourism²⁸ and Foreign Direct Investment) thereby plummeting budget systems across Africa. But there are no better anti-terrorism weapons than the promotion and protection of human rights as recognized by national and international instruments.²⁹

 

 

While Islamic terrorists blame human rights proponents for the decline of Islam from its golden age to its present state of decadence,³⁰ human rights proponents see acts of terrorism as affronts to human rights ideals. Although both parade an array of ethical ideals that are grounded in a variety of comprehensive doctrines that are encoded in the natural law, called for by divine commandment, political means to further human good or utility, or institutions to produce virtuous citizens, their respective operational methods for the attainment of these separate ideals have become a subject of intense contestation. This is an ideological battle for the hearts and minds of people that manifests in the deployment of methods that may defeat its superlative qualities. While Western liberal ideals have come under attack by al-Qaida-led terrorism, Western liberals are jettisoning a rights-based anti-terrorism approach for military based anti-terrorism approach that stands human rights on the head. President Obama admonished that “. . . we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish . . . That’s what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism.”³¹[page]

 

 

In sheer disregard for morality and public perceptions, global terrorist organizations pay scant attention to the distinction between combatant and non-combatant targets. They have inflicted unimaginable agony and pain on innocent people in their quest to transform “all society to their religious beliefs, and they believe that killing infidels or nonbelievers will result in their being rewarded in the afterlife.”³²

 

With the profound negative impact of terrorism on human rights and the loss of thousands of lives across the world, the United Nations General Assembly has uttered its concern with “the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by terrorist groups,” and emphatically asserts that “acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations” are “aimed at the destruction of human rights.”³³

 

Across Africa, terrorist organizations have continued to unleash untold hardship on the already precarious condition of people who have witnessed persistent food crises due to adverse climatic conditions. They have caused the killing, rape, forced abduction and marriage of women, attacks on teachers, schools, public health facilities, churches and places of worship; preventing farming activities and fatally attacking security personnel and institutions. Accordingly, the Nigerian Chief Justice of the Supreme Court observed that:

 

    Terrorism poses serious challenges to any nation unfortunate to experience it as it has the risk of undermining core values of the nation such as the Rule of Law, respect for human rights, protection of civilians, tolerance among the various ethnic groups. Terrorism undermines overall economic activities and development, thereby seriously affecting living standard of the poor segment of society. It has driven all investments away – both local and foreign. Terrorist attacks devalue the quality of life and affects the enjoyment of some basic rights like right to life, freedom of movement, access to possible employment and educational opportunities.³⁴

 

 

As human beings, terrorists have inalienable rights that accrue to all members of the human family. The temptation to apply and arbitrarily exact impermissible force in anti-terrorism campaigns is an invitation to the Hobbesian state of nature. This is because a rights-based anti-terrorism approach is perceived as weak, a champion of terrorists’ rights and unperturbed by the plight of the victims of terrorism. For example, by not employing a rights-based approach, the Nigerian government got wrapped up in controversy over the destructive incident in Baga, Borno State in an encounter between the Nigerian Army and terrorists in April 2013.³⁵[page]

 

 

The sordid sight of clamping down on alleged terrorists in detentions camps across the world due to allegations of terrorism has worsened the human rights records of most countries since 9/11. By their very nature, certain rights are time and again breached in this regard. They include such rights as the right to human dignity, and individual worth, right to life³⁶ (including freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life), the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security of person (including freedom from arbitrary detention or arrest and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determine by a court of law, right to due process in case of arrest or prosecution). It is obvious that militarized anti-terrorism has escalated terrorism rather than ameliorated it.³⁷

 

Under the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all peoples have the rights to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” however, in the pursuit of that objective human rights must be respected. Hence, where terroriz strategies are employed to deprive them of such rights by government or private actors it will amount to violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because a legitimate and authoritative government is a government based on the will of the people. It provides that “[T]he will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote and by equivalent free voting procedures.”³⁸

 

The United States Supreme Court declared in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld³⁹ that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in narrow circumstances, the government did not have unfettered discretion to hold a U.S. citizen in indefinite detention. Recently, the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria⁴⁰ declared the alleged killings of squatters, suspected to be terrorists, in the Apo/Gudu District of Abuja by security operatives as a violation of their right to life. The matter is still pending in court.⁴¹

 

 

It is important for anti-terrorism strategies to uphold human rights as a basis for sustainable peace and security in Africa. The advantages of a rights-based approach to anti-terrorism cannot be overemphasized with the nature of contemporary terrorist campaigns that are ideology driven. Hence, the fight against terror must be carried out in accordance with the law in order to strengthen the state’s power and spirit. This is important because every anti-terrorism strategy should satisfy the provision of the law, respect human rights and raise a defense based on law.⁴²[page]

 

 

Terrorism has caused untold hardship for Africans resulting in the loss of lif and property, injury, social dislocation and displacement; disruption of family and communal life; an atmosphere of political insecurity and instability; deepening hunger and poverty in society; dehumanization of women and children; and a general atmosphere of mistrust, fear, and frenzy.⁴³ The interests of victims of terrorism can best be protected under a regime that guarantees the rule of law and not arbitrariness. 

 

Across Africa civil society organizations have continued to complement governments’ efforts in the promotion and protection of the rights of victims of terrorism. But it is imperative for African governments to design victim protection schemes that are inclusive and broad in providing protection, assistance, compensation and other remedies for terror victims.⁴⁴ Africa should learn from the U.S. in creating victim compensation fund initiatives to provide “full, fair, and reasonable compensation for the entire loss suffered by each victim and family.”⁴⁵ This will replace the ad hoc incentives that are merely inchoate and palliative with structurally responsive and compensatory schemes. 

 

 

For human rights to work as an anti-terrorism mechanism in Africa, they must play both a preventive and responsive role. Hence, the human rights mechanism must address the struggles of the people to meet their basic necessities of life, because the rights to food, education, medical care, housing and shelter, employment, labor, a healthy and clean environment, and water etc. are the bedrock for the prevention of the emergence of terrorism. This can be achieved by making ESCRs justiciable, especially since Africa is endowed with resources to lift the continent out of poverty. The South African judiciary is blazing the trail in insisting that socio-economic rights entrenched in the constitution are justiciable. 

 

In fact, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights has given civil and political rights broad interpretation to cover ESCRs. Thus, in SERAC v Nigeria and a line of cases, the African Commission read into the African Charter rights to be ancillary to rights that are expressly provided therein such as the right to enjoy the best attainable state of mental and physical health, the right to property, right to shelter and housing, right to food, right to health and the right to economic, social and cultural development. The Commission made it clear that the right to food is inseparably linked to the dignity of human beings and is therefore essential for the enjoyment and fulfillment of such other rights as health, education, work and political participation.

 

This thinking is important because terrorist organizations are increasingly taking advantage of the socio-economic vulnerabilities of Africans in their indoctrination and recruitment exercises. Consequently, addressing concerns related to ESCRs would not only serve as a preventive anti-terrorism mechanism, but also as a responsive anti-terrorism scheme.[page]

 

 

Since most African constitutions proclaim the sovereignty of the people, it is expected that ESCRs will take their prime place in policies and programs to the extent that citizens will demand compliance through judicial means. This is because these rights are paramount in the fight against terrorism. It is also important to note that whereas human rights depend on equality, fairness, non-discrimination and respect for human dignity, terrorism is dependent on discrimination, aggression, exclusion and division. African society must not fail in its obligation to the people by addressing inherent grievances and frustrations that normally breed terrorism.

 

 

* Paul Andrew GWAZA, senior research officer at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abuja, Nigeria.

 

1.Ojo Abiola, Constitutional Law and Military Rule in Nigeria, Ibadan: Evans Brothers, 1987, at 239.

 

2.Richard Chutterbuck , Terrorism in an Unstable World, New York: Routledge, 1994, at 3.

 

3.John Murphy, “Challenges of ‘New’ Terrorism” in Armstrong, David ed., Routledge Handbook of International Law, London: Routledge, 2008, at 282.

 

4.Dakas C.J. Dakas, “Terrorism in the Aviation Sector: The Human Rights Dimension of the Use of Body Scanners,” in E. Azinge and F. Bello eds., Law and Security in Nigeria, Lagos: NIALS, 2010.

 

5.Obi I. Cyril, “Terrorism in West Africa: Real, emerging or imagined threats?” in African Security Review 15.3, Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, at 95-96.[page]

 

6.J. Jordan Paust, “Human Rights, Terrorism, and Efforts to Combat Terrorism” in Julie A. Mertus & Jeffrey W. Helsing eds., Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law and Peacebuilding, Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2006, at 240.

 

7.Okafor Obiora Chinedu, “Newness, Imperialism, and International Legal Reform in Our Time: A TWAIL Perspective,” in  43 Osgoode Hall Law Journal, No. 1 & 2, 2005. See generally Upendra Baxi, “The War on Terror” and the “‘War of Terror’: Nomadic Multitudes, Aggressive Incumbents, and the ‘New’ International Law: Prefatory Remarks on Two ‘Wars’,” in 43 Osgoode Hall Law Journal, No. 1 & 2, 2005.

 

8.A. Botha, “Challenges in Understanding Terrorism in Africa,” Okunnu, W. & Botha, A. eds., Understanding Terrorism in Africa: Building Bridges and Overcoming the Gaps, Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2008, at 7.

 

9.“Somalia’s al-Shabaab claims responsibility for Nairobi mall attack,” Al Arabiya, September 21, 2013 (visited July12, 2014).

 

10.Human Rights Watch, Nigeria: Boko Haram Attacks Cause Humanitarian Crisis, March 14, 2014.

 

11.Anneli Botha, supra, at 7.

 

12.James Lindsay , “Increased Prospects for Low-Intensity Conflict” in The DISAM Journal, Summer, 1990; see International Military Staff, “NATO’s Military Concept for Defence against Terrorism”.

 

13.Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963); Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civilian Aviation (1971); Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (1973); International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1979); Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (1979); Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1988); Convention Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (1988); Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (1988); Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (1991); International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing (1997); International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999); and, most recently, the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (United Nations 2005b), which entered into force in 2007.

 

14.E. Rosand, “The Security Council as ‘global legislator’: ultra vires or ultra innovative?” 28 FILJ, 2005,p 542.

 

15.Julius Ihonvbere ed., The Political Economy of Crisis and Underdevelopment in Africa: Selected Works of Claude Ake, Lagos: Jad Publishers Ltd., 1989, at 91.

 

16.D. Marie-Benedicte , “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”,  in 32 Human Rights Quarterly, No. 1 (2010), at 1-20; see J.M. Audi, “Human Rights Enforcement in Nigeria: Towards Ensuring An Enduring Democracy,” in Human Rights Review: An International Human Rights Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1.

 

17.Micheline Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalisation Era, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008, at 3.

 

18.Ayo Olubamise Atsenuwa et al., Human Rights Made Easy, 3rd Edition, Lagos: Legal Research and Resource Development Center, 1999, at 6.[page]

 

19.Nnamdi J. Aduba, “The Impact of Poverty on the Realisation of Fundamental Human Rights in Nigeria,” in Yemi Osinbajo and Awa Kalu eds., Democracy and the Law, Lagos: Federal Ministry of Justice, 1991, at 201-208.

 

20.M. Odge, “Human Rights, Civil, Political, Social, Economic and Cultural Rights: Their Place and Protection in the Future Political Order,”  21 The Nigerian Bar Journal, No 3, 1986, at 87.

 

21.See Sections 33 to 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended).

 

22.See Report of the Constitutional Drafting Committee, vol.1, 1979, at xvi.

 

23.Eze Osita, Human Rights in Africa, Lagos: Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, 1984, at 31.

 

24.Report of the African Development Bank and Global Financial Integrity, Illicit Financial Flows and the Problem of Net Resource Transfers from Africa: 1980-2009, May 2013.

 

25.Julius Nyerere, Stability and Change in Africa (an address to the University of Toronto, 1969), printed in African Contemporary Record 2, 1969-70, at 30-31.

 

26.Dakas C.J. Dakas, “A Panoramic Survey of the Jurisdiction of Indian and Nigerian Courts on the Justiciability of Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy” in Epiphany Azinge& Bolaji Owasanoye eds., Justiciability and Constitutionalism: An Economic Analysis of Law, Lagos: NIALS Press, 2010.

 

27.Article 2 (1), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

 

28.D. Melvin, “Americans’ Fear After Bombing Causes Drop in Kenya’s Tourism: Safari Business Barely Functions” in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 23 August, 1998, available at ProQuest Newsstand database (visited July7, 2014); Nyong’o, P. The Economic Survey, 2004.

29.J. Jordan Paust, supra note 6, at 254.

 

30.John Murphy, supra note 3, “Challenges of ‘New’ Terrorism,” at 287.[page]

 

31.Barack Obama , “Strengthening Intelligence and Aviation Security,” The Guardian (Nigeria), January 10, 2010, at 27, also cited in Dakas C.J. Dakas, supra note 26.

 

32.Jeffrey D. Simon , “The global terrorist threat,” 82 PKPF 10, 2002, at 11.

 

33.UN General Assembly Resolution 54/164, “Human Rights and Terrorism,” UN GAOR, 54th Session, Agenda Item 116(b), UN Doc.A/Res/54/164, 2000.

 

34.Samson Ezea Lemmy Ughegbe and Musa Njadvara, “Terrorism crippling Nigeria, says CJN,” The Guardian 8 July, 2014.

 

35.The National Human Rights Commission, “The Baga Incident and the Situation in North-East Nigeria an Interim Assessment and Report,” Abuja: National Human Rights Commission, June, 2013.

 

36.Raja Mudassir, “Pakistani victims: War on terror toll put at 49,000,” March 27, 2013.

 

37.Nuzzo Angelicca cited in Upendra Baxi, supra note 7, at11.

 

38.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 21 (3), UN GA Res. 217A, 3 UN GAOR, UN Doc. A810 (1948), 71.

 

39.Dakas C.J. Dakas, supra note 4; 48 U.S. 557; 126 S. Ct. 2749; 165 L. Ed. 2d 723; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5185; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S452.

 

40.Bem Angwe Chidi Anselm Odinkalu and Mahdi Saudatu, Report on the Alleged Killings of Squatters at Apo/Gudu District, Abuja: National Human Rights Commission, April 7, 2014.

 

41.Tobi Soniyi, “Court Stops Execution of NHRC’s Report on Apo Killing,” This Day Newspaper, 3 July, 2014.

 

42.Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04, at para. 86, Judgment of June 30, 2004 (with the concurring votes of Vice President E. Mazza and justice M. Cheshin); Dakas C.J. Dakas, supra note 4, at 19.

 

43.Ladan Muhammed Tawfiq, “Conflict and its Impact on National Development: With Particular Reference to Northern Nigeria,” Paper Presentation at a 2-Day Northern Peace Summit with the Theme: Linking Development and Conflict Transformation in Northern Nigeria Organized by the Centre for Crisis Prevention and Peace Advocacy at Arewa House Auditorium, Kaduna, Kaduna State on 10-11 January, 2013, at  6-7.

 

45.The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act—Public Law 107-42 September 22, 2001(49 USC 40101); see James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (PL 111-347) Zadroga Act; Public Law 107 - 134, Victims of Terrorism Relief Act of 2001, January 23, 2002; Final Rule: 2011 Victim Compensation Fund.