Nigerian civil society organizations, under the auspices of the
Action Group on Free Civic Space, has called on
the National Assembly to suspend the passage of the bill until it
has been properly reviewed.
The group in its statement on Tuesday said the continuing spread
of coronavirus has posed serious social, economic, legal, and
political challenges across the globe, necessitating state and
national authorities to modify existing emergency response
mechanisms and make new policy choices compatible with the new
realities created by the disease.
“We acknowledge the commitment of the House of Representatives
towards exploring legislative interventions that will address the
evolving infectious diseases proactively. In particular, the
Control of Infectious Diseases Act (CIDA) Bill
2020 is now being considered as a strategic legal
framework for repositioning and strengthening the national disease
control body and relevant health officials to undertake the
important task of preventing and managing the outbreak of
infectious diseases such as COVID-19 which has claimed over 80
lives across various states in Nigeria.”
The group extensively examining the provisions of the bill noted
that the Bill requires major revisions and adequate consultations.
Sequel to this examination of the bill made the following
observations, highlighting some troubling sections for further
review:
- Granting overreaching powers to law enforcement
officers or the police to apprehend persons suffering from
infectious diseases, is worrying—Section 24. First of all,
how will police officers determine that a person is suffering from
an infectious disease? By mere physical observation? Or based on
sound medical diagnosis? For a country with a high record of abuse
of power by state security agents, such omnibus clauses granting
the police unfettered powers to apprehend persons suffering a
disease will open the gateway for unrestrained repression of civil
liberties. Since the Nigerian government-imposed lockdown on three
major Nigerian cities of Lagos, Ogun and the Federal Capital
Territory, the overbearing conduct of security operatives has
resulted in the brutality and eventual killings of over 20 citizens
in the name of enforcing the lockdowns and public safety measures.
The database of closing civic spaces in
Nigeria—closingspaces.org—documents these
atrocities and continues to track ongoing ones. Conferring powers
on police officers to make health judgments, will aggravate the
situation, and roll back the gains that have been made to protect
the civic space and human freedoms during a pandemic. - Isolation of persons at undisclosed locations:
The Bill grants unparalleled powers to the Director-General of NCDC
to detain members of the public and minors, indefinitely, at a
hospital or undisclosed locations if they are suspected to be a
case or carrier of an infectious disease. (Section 13(1)(2)). This
power is extreme and overly discretionary. Subjecting individuals
to indefinite detention without any clear justification or medical
evidence that demonstrates the presence of an infectious disease is
dangerous to public safety. More tellingly, the right to
detain at undisclosed locations could be explored for ulterior
motives where there are no checks and balances. - Unilateral declaration of isolation areas, destruction
of suspicious or known sources of infectious disease such as
structures, goods, sewage, etc.: Nigerian citizens are
vested with the fundamental right to property, as guaranteed by
Section 43 and 44 of the Nigerian Constitution. The right to
property is protected against arbitrary seizure, isolation and
destruction by the Nigerian Constitution, the Land Use Act, as well
as the various states’ urban and regional planning laws. When the
government carries out demolitions, forced isolation and forced
evictions in the name of disease control, individuals’ fundamental
rights to property, dignity, and fair hearing are violated. Illegal
forced evictions and demolitions also violates the fundamental
right to life, dignity, and housing, as expressed in the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified into Nigerian
law. - Compulsory vaccination against diseases: This
Bill is silent on the need for informed consent prior to any
vaccination. Informed medical consent is a right guaranteed to
every person. It imposes no obligation on the NCDC to inform
members of the public of any health risks that may follow
compulsory vaccinations. There is no provision for legal
responsibility for drug reaction or other negative side effects,
especially where informed consent is neither sought nor obtained.
The arbitrary power to enforce compulsory vaccinations without a
clear establishment of public health justification disregards the
virtue of personal autonomy and citizens’ rights to make informed
medical choices. The particular provision of the bill is draconian,
inconsistent with the principle of human freedoms, and should be
expunged without much ado. - Breaches of individual privacy, confidentiality
agreements, and doctor-patient data privacy: Section 37 of
the 1999 Nigerian Constitution guarantees citizens’ privacy and
protection from the invasion of their homes, correspondence,
telephone, and telegraphic communications. Section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act restricts the disclosure of personal
data without obtaining consent. The bill’s provisions authorizing
health officers to invade citizens’ homes in the name of disease
control negate these human rights protections. If passed into law,
human rights and freedoms will be caged. Press freedom will be
under threat. It further signals that the days of patient-doctor
confidentiality is over. - Arbitrary restriction on freedom of association,
gatherings, and public entertainments: Section 20 of the
Bill empowers the Director-General to stop any meeting or gathering
that is ‘likely to increase the spread of an infectious
disease’. With the absence of statutory safeguards to prevent
the abuse of this power, there is a strong likelihood that
intolerant regimes, including overzealous state agents, will
proscribe all sorts of meetings, including human rights meetings,
accountability conferences, public protests, civil demonstrations,
and the like, in the name of disease prevention. These provisions
will further embolden authoritarians to erode the democratic rights
of citizens, including, clamping down on associations and
gatherings that examine and critique the failings of
government.
“In light of the foregoing, we make bold to state that
the bill should not be passed in its current form for the reasons
stated above. We, therefore, re-echo the sentiments of the
current Director General of the NCDC when he stated unequivocally
that drafting a bill in the middle of a crisis is not a priority.
Like he rightly stated, the Bill requires more consultation. On
that premise, we recommend as follows:
- The use of draconian and coercive language throughout the
entire draft statute is unnecessary. Resorting to repressive and
forcible methods of conducting surveillance, investigation and
prevention of infectious disease will create an atmosphere of fear
in the country, considerably contract the spaces for civic
engagement, thereby frustrating the exploration of solutions.
Vaccination in particular, should not be
administered on anyone without consent. - Redraft several provisions of the bill in order to conform to
legally-binding human rights standards that Nigeria has signed on
to. A functional statute rests on the pillars of respect for
citizen’s rights, separation of powers, gender sensitivity,
socio-cultural norms, religious ethics and, provision of security,
food, and water for members of the public subjected to restrictive
provisions. - Review the excessive powers granted to the NCDC
Director-General, the Minister of Health and other law enforcement
officers to subjectively arrest without warrant, confiscate
properties, and obtain information without any restraint. - Review and expunge the time limitation on the right to file
complaints at magistrate courts. The limited time frame is
impractical and deprives aggrieved persons adequate opportunity to
be heard for the redressal of wrongs done to them,” added.
Nigerian civil society organizations, under the auspices of the
Action Group on Free Civic Space, has called on
the National Assembly to suspend the passage of the bill until it
has been properly reviewed.
The group in its statement on Tuesday said the continuing spread
of coronavirus has posed serious social, economic, legal, and
political challenges across the globe, necessitating state and
national authorities to modify existing emergency response
mechanisms and make new policy choices compatible with the new
realities created by the disease.
“We acknowledge the commitment of the House of Representatives
towards exploring legislative interventions that will address the
evolving infectious diseases proactively. In particular, the
Control of Infectious Diseases Act (CIDA) Bill
2020 is now being considered as a strategic legal
framework for repositioning and strengthening the national disease
control body and relevant health officials to undertake the
important task of preventing and managing the outbreak of
infectious diseases such as COVID-19 which has claimed over 80
lives across various states in Nigeria.”
The group extensively examining the provisions of the bill noted
that the Bill requires major revisions and adequate consultations.
Sequel to this examination of the bill made the following
observations, highlighting some troubling sections for further
review:
- Granting overreaching powers to law enforcement
officers or the police to apprehend persons suffering from
infectious diseases, is worrying—Section 24. First of all,
how will police officers determine that a person is suffering from
an infectious disease? By mere physical observation? Or based on
sound medical diagnosis? For a country with a high record of abuse
of power by state security agents, such omnibus clauses granting
the police unfettered powers to apprehend persons suffering a
disease will open the gateway for unrestrained repression of civil
liberties. Since the Nigerian government-imposed lockdown on three
major Nigerian cities of Lagos, Ogun and the Federal Capital
Territory, the overbearing conduct of security operatives has
resulted in the brutality and eventual killings of over 20 citizens
in the name of enforcing the lockdowns and public safety measures.
The database of closing civic spaces in
Nigeria—closingspaces.org—documents these
atrocities and continues to track ongoing ones. Conferring powers
on police officers to make health judgments, will aggravate the
situation, and roll back the gains that have been made to protect
the civic space and human freedoms during a pandemic. - Isolation of persons at undisclosed locations:
The Bill grants unparalleled powers to the Director-General of NCDC
to detain members of the public and minors, indefinitely, at a
hospital or undisclosed locations if they are suspected to be a
case or carrier of an infectious disease. (Section 13(1)(2)). This
power is extreme and overly discretionary. Subjecting individuals
to indefinite detention without any clear justification or medical
evidence that demonstrates the presence of an infectious disease is
dangerous to public safety. More tellingly, the right to
detain at undisclosed locations could be explored for ulterior
motives where there are no checks and balances. - Unilateral declaration of isolation areas, destruction
of suspicious or known sources of infectious disease such as
structures, goods, sewage, etc.: Nigerian citizens are
vested with the fundamental right to property, as guaranteed by
Section 43 and 44 of the Nigerian Constitution. The right to
property is protected against arbitrary seizure, isolation and
destruction by the Nigerian Constitution, the Land Use Act, as well
as the various states’ urban and regional planning laws. When the
government carries out demolitions, forced isolation and forced
evictions in the name of disease control, individuals’ fundamental
rights to property, dignity, and fair hearing are violated. Illegal
forced evictions and demolitions also violates the fundamental
right to life, dignity, and housing, as expressed in the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified into Nigerian
law. - Compulsory vaccination against diseases: This
Bill is silent on the need for informed consent prior to any
vaccination. Informed medical consent is a right guaranteed to
every person. It imposes no obligation on the NCDC to inform
members of the public of any health risks that may follow
compulsory vaccinations. There is no provision for legal
responsibility for drug reaction or other negative side effects,
especially where informed consent is neither sought nor obtained.
The arbitrary power to enforce compulsory vaccinations without a
clear establishment of public health justification disregards the
virtue of personal autonomy and citizens’ rights to make informed
medical choices. The particular provision of the bill is draconian,
inconsistent with the principle of human freedoms, and should be
expunged without much ado. - Breaches of individual privacy, confidentiality
agreements, and doctor-patient data privacy: Section 37 of
the 1999 Nigerian Constitution guarantees citizens’ privacy and
protection from the invasion of their homes, correspondence,
telephone, and telegraphic communications. Section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act restricts the disclosure of personal
data without obtaining consent. The bill’s provisions authorizing
health officers to invade citizens’ homes in the name of disease
control negate these human rights protections. If passed into law,
human rights and freedoms will be caged. Press freedom will be
under threat. It further signals that the days of patient-doctor
confidentiality is over. - Arbitrary restriction on freedom of association,
gatherings, and public entertainments: Section 20 of the
Bill empowers the Director-General to stop any meeting or gathering
that is ‘likely to increase the spread of an infectious
disease’. With the absence of statutory safeguards to prevent
the abuse of this power, there is a strong likelihood that
intolerant regimes, including overzealous state agents, will
proscribe all sorts of meetings, including human rights meetings,
accountability conferences, public protests, civil demonstrations,
and the like, in the name of disease prevention. These provisions
will further embolden authoritarians to erode the democratic rights
of citizens, including, clamping down on associations and
gatherings that examine and critique the failings of
government.
“In light of the foregoing, we make bold to state that
the bill should not be passed in its current form for the reasons
stated above. We, therefore, re-echo the sentiments of the
current Director General of the NCDC when he stated unequivocally
that drafting a bill in the middle of a crisis is not a priority.
Like he rightly stated, the Bill requires more consultation. On
that premise, we recommend as follows:
- The use of draconian and coercive language throughout the
entire draft statute is unnecessary. Resorting to repressive and
forcible methods of conducting surveillance, investigation and
prevention of infectious disease will create an atmosphere of fear
in the country, considerably contract the spaces for civic
engagement, thereby frustrating the exploration of solutions.
Vaccination in particular, should not be
administered on anyone without consent. - Redraft several provisions of the bill in order to conform to
legally-binding human rights standards that Nigeria has signed on
to. A functional statute rests on the pillars of respect for
citizen’s rights, separation of powers, gender sensitivity,
socio-cultural norms, religious ethics and, provision of security,
food, and water for members of the public subjected to restrictive
provisions. - Review the excessive powers granted to the NCDC
Director-General, the Minister of Health and other law enforcement
officers to subjectively arrest without warrant, confiscate
properties, and obtain information without any restraint. - Review and expunge the time limitation on the right to file
complaints at magistrate courts. The limited time frame is
impractical and deprives aggrieved persons adequate opportunity to
be heard for the redressal of wrongs done to them,” added.