'International Institute for Science, Technology and Education'
Abstract
Terrorism is defined as acts of violence or threatened use of violence against a target population in an attempt to achieve political, religious or socio-economic objectives. Nigeria is presently experiencing what is considered its worst security situation since the 1967–1970 civil war due to the surge in terrorists’ activities. As a result, the Nigerian government has strategically developed measures including the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 and its Amendment Act of 2013 to end the scourge of terrorism. This study examines the legal frameworks for the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria vis-a-vis the principles of fundamental human rights outlined in the Nigerian Constitution and the International Human Rights Laws. It significantly highlighted the lack of balance between the provisions of security and protection of human rights as evidenced in the Acts. Some irreconcilable approaches border on charges punishable by death sentences, life imprisonment, search and arrest without court warrants, detention of terrorism suspects, deprivation of citizenship, interception of communications, proscription of organizations, and excessive powers accorded to government agencies. Some provisions of the Acts are found to be incompatible with Nigeria's constitutional provisions on human rights and international human rights obligations. Among others, this study recommends the need to address excessive punishments, undue powers of government agencies, and the lack of clarity in the definition of terrorism in both the Principal and the Amendment Acts and strive to balance the protection of human rights and the provision of security in Nigeria. Keywords: Terrorism, Human Rights, Terrorism Prevention Acts, Nigeria Constitution, International Human Rights Law DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/109-04 Publication date:May 31st 2021
