Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Raise Issues with Nigeria Regarding Investigations into Boko Haram Abductions, Reported Mass Graves and the Forceful Removal of Children

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today considered the initial report of Nigeria under the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.  Committee Experts raised questions regarding investigations into Boko Haram abductions, the criminalisation of enforced disappearance, reported mass graves and the forceful removal of children. 

Suela Janina, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked how many investigations and criminal proceedings had been carried out regarding abductions perpetrated by Boko Haram?  What progress had been made in developing a bill that would further criminalise enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity?   

Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that, according to recent ministerial statements, the number of missing persons remained undetermined.  There were disturbing reports that mass graves existed in certain places.  The State party needed to determine the number of graves, identify disappeared persons, establish a data bank, and notify the relatives of victims.  What was the progress made in that regard?

Mr. Alban Alencastro also said that the removal of children represented one of the most serious offences in the State.  Did domestic law criminalise this directly?  Were any complaints filed since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child?  Could any adoption be investigated in cases of alleged enforced disappearances?

Introducing the report, Kashim Adeiza Adamu, Minister, Permanent Mission of Nigeria in Geneva and the head of the delegation, said that Nigeria had enacted and enforced domestic laws that explicitly criminalised enforced disappearances and prescribed penalties for perpetrators, such as the Anti-Torture Act of 2017, which included provisions related to enforced disappearances.  The National Human Rights Commission had been established, with a mandate to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances and other human rights abuses.  Additionally, the Nigerian security forces and other relevant Government agencies constantly underwent training on upholding the principles of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms while maintaining peace and stability in the country. 

In concluding remarks, Olivier de Frouville, Committee Chair, expressed regret that answers to Committee Experts’ questions could not be delivered immediately.  He said that the Committee looked forward to receiving answers in writing.  In closing, he expressed hope that cooperation between Nigeria and the Committee would deepen over time.    

The delegation of Nigeria consisted of representatives of the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the United Nations Office and other international organisations in Geneva. 

The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Nigeria at the end of its twenty-fifth session, which concludes on 29 September.  Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.  The programme of work of the Committee’s twenty-fifth session and other documents related to the session can be found here. 

The Committee will next meet in public to hold a Joint event on illegal intercountry adoptions on 20 September, 2023 at 3 p.m.

Report

The Committee has before it the initial report of Nigeria (CED/C/NGA/1).

Presentation of Report

KASHIM ADEIZA ADAMU, Minister, Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations Office and other international organisations in Geneva, and the head of the delegation, said that a full delegation from Nigeria could not attend the dialogue, attributing their absence to the recent appointments in the Cabinet by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.  He stated that the Nigerian Government undertook various steps to address the issue of enforced disappearance.  Nigeria was a State Party to several international human rights instruments, such as the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The State had enacted and enforced domestic laws that explicitly criminalised enforced disappearances and prescribed penalties for perpetrators, such as the Anti-Torture Act of 2017, which included provisions related to enforced disappearances.  The National Human Rights Commission had been established, with a mandate to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances and other human rights abuses.  Additionally, the Nigerian security forces and other relevant Government agencies constantly underwent training on the need to uphold the principles of the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms while maintaining peace and stability in the country.  There was also cooperation between the Armed Forces of Nigeria and human rights desks to facilitate an immediate response to citizens’ complaints of possible excesses by military personnel.  Also, the State party had a Judicial Panel of Inquiry to investigate the level of compliance of the Armed Forces with the rules of engagement in all parts of the country.  Mr. Adamu expressed sincere regrets for the unavailability of delegates and said that the Permanent Mission would ensure that the Committee’s questions were duly transmitted to relevant Government agencies for appropriate response.

Questions by Committee Experts

SUELA JANINA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the State party’s report was submitted with a nine-year delay.  The State party needed to multiply efforts in the domains of human rights and enforced disappearances.  The State party had not a declaration to recognise the competence of the Committee to receive individual complaints or complaints from other State parties, so formalisation in that regard was needed.  How was the State part involving civil society in the process of developing legislation and policy?  What role did the National Human Rights Commission play in that regard?  What were the competences of the Commission, and what activities did it carry out?  More statistics were needed regarding enforced disappearances, including on the number of cases referred for criminal prosecution and on compensation provided by the State. 

It seemed that legislative intervention was needed to enable the direct application of the Convention in Nigerian courts.  Why was the Convention not yet incorporated in national law?  Were there any steps taken in that regard?  How could the Convention be invoked in courts?  Could the State party provide concrete case examples in that regard?  Had any measures been taken to harmonise national legislation with the Convention?

The State report suggested that there had been a rise in enforced disappearances.  Could more information be provided on the gender and age of victims, and other aspects?  More information was needed on the progress made towards establishing a database for disappeared persons.  The State party had not yet incorporated enforced disappearance as an autonomous offence in national law.  Was it taking steps to do so?  Could the State party provide statistics on acts of enforced disappearance perpetrated by security forces, including in extraordinary circumstances?  Had the presidential panel, or any other panel, investigated any cases of enforced disappearances, and if so, what were the outcomes?  How many investigations and criminal proceedings had been carried out regarding abductions perpetrated by Boko Haram?  What progress had been made in developing a bill that would further criminalise enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity?  No statute of limitations should be applied for the crime of enforced disappearance.  If it were applied, however, it should begin from the onset of the offence.  What steps were being taken to change how the statute of limitations was applied?

What were the measures taken to strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria?  Military jurisdiction could impede investigations.  Could the military authorities prosecute cases, and if so, according to which legislation?  Did the competent authorities have enough access to documentation and enough resources to launch an investigation, even when there was no formal complaint?  Were there any suspensions or other sanctions issued in situations when the alleged offender was a State official?  How did the State provide protection to any person participating in investigations against all ill treatment and other influences?  A bill was being developed to establish a witness protection programme.  Would it be applicable to all persons referred to in Article 12 of the Convention?  What progress had been made in that domain?         

JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about mechanisms applied in situations of expulsion, deportation, extradition and in situations when a person could face persecution in the destination country. 

All persons deprived of liberty should be protected in proper detention centres according to relevant provisions.  Could the State party provide information on allegations of secret detentions?  Suspects should be brought into courts within 48 hours according to relevant legislation.  How would the State guarantee that all accused individuals had access to a lawyer and could communicate with their families?  What efforts had been made to ensure the right to proper consular assistance?  Were there separate registries of persons deprived of liberty that offered disaggregated data on offences?  To what extent could  families and other interested parties access information regarding persons in military or other forms of detention?  On the basis of what legislation was access to information provided?

Would training programmes on the Convention for military personnel be extended to other stakeholders, including the judiciary, other public servants and civil society?  Did the act prohibiting violence against persons apply on the national level?  What was the procedure for victims to launch complaint proceedings and to obtain compensation?  According to recent ministerial statements, the number of missing persons remained undetermined.  There were disturbing reports that mass graves existed in certain places.  The State party needed to determine the number of graves, identify disappeared persons, establish a data bank, and notify the relatives of victims.  What was the progress made in that regard?

The removal of children represented one of the most serious offences in the State, according to the State party.  Did domestic law criminalise this directly?  Were any complaints filed since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child?  Could any adoption be investigated in cases of alleged enforced disappearances?  

Concluding Statement

OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, thanked the representatives of Nigeria who had attended the meeting, and expressed regret that answers to Committee Experts’ questions could not be delivered immediately.  He said that the Committee looked forward to receiving answers in writing.  In closing, he expressed hope that cooperation between Nigeria and the Committee would deepen over time. 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

CED23.011E