Human Rights

Witness Protection and Criminal Justice in Africa: Nigeria in International Perspective’, by Dr Suzzie Onyeka Oyakhire, provides an important contribution to the processes aiming to establish witness protection concepts, legislation, and requisite structures for the Nigerian criminal justice system. As Oyakhire points out the challenges in institutionalising witness protection in Nigeria are abundant. For this reason, solid academic research such as her book, will be essential in assisting law makers in drafting a law that on one hand appropriately regulates how witness protection is applied at different stages of proceedings within the specific Nigerian legal, socio-economical, and cultural context and consciously considers what benefit international and national practices and standards could provide to the process on the other. Oyakhire’s caution against applying a ‘one size fits all approach’ and recommendation to be aware of the risk of importing ideas from abroad without due consideration to the national context is highly relevant. This is essential in trying to ensure that whatever system Nigerian authorities decide to implement, it must first and foremost be appropriately adopted to respond to national needs. Some principles for practical implementation of witness protection measures, such as how to mitigate risks through prevention, deterrence, and avoidance, will be similar regardless of the geographical location but finding the appropriate solution to these practical challenges will need to have a local flavour.

In Nigeria, the relevance of witness protection as a critical aspect of criminal justice administration is increasingly becoming evident. Recent developments in Nigeria such as the prosecution of Boko Haram members for terrorism, prosecution of former government officials and high profile individuals for economic and financial crimes as well as Nnamdi Kanu for treason, brought to the fore the need to clarify the legal and conceptual issues that underlie the framework for protecting witnesses. The concept of witness protection is characterised by ambiguity about its precise meaning, thereby subjecting it to different interpretations. Using the Nigerian case study, my book illustrates the obscurities inherent in the concept of witness protection. These obscurities are discussed around five critical themes: the definition of witness protection; the scope of beneficiaries requiring protection; the nature of crimes necessitating protection; the nature of protective measures and the administrative control of witness protection. The book thus explored the concept of witness protection which is still at an early developmental stage in Nigeria. The book draws from international debates, legal developments, and institutional practices from other jurisdictions as a basis for developing Nigerian efforts in witness protection. It adopts two distinct perspectives: the criminal justice perspectives and human rights perspectives as heuristic tools for analysing the concept and to separate the disparate influences that shape how witness protection is construed. These distinctions are utilised throughout the book as an integrated way of conceptualising the concept of witness protection.

This symposium will seek to foster debate about how double standards are expressed within international law and enhance understanding of how evidence of double standards impacts perceptions and practice. It will feature a wide range of papers that show the many ways that claims and evidence of double standards manifest in different forms of international legal argument, as well as time- and area-specific considerations of how double standards operate in different fields of international law, including from Global South(s) and empirical perspectives. This symposium will bring together scholars and practitioners, from various fields of international law and through divergent theoretical and geographical perspectives.

In July 2023, Prof Okafor presented a revised version of a document which has formed a key part of the mandate’s work since its establishment in 2005, namely the Draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity. This document defines international solidarity as ‘an expression of unity by which peoples and individuals enjoy the benefits of a peaceful, just and equitable international order, secure their human rights and ensure sustainable development’ (draft art 1(1)). It goes on to specify that both individuals and peoples have a right to international solidarity, meaning ‘a right of individuals and peoples to participate meaningfully in, contribute to and enjoy a social and international order in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized’ (draft art 4(1)). The Declaration outlines a number of corresponding duties, one of which is the state obligation to ‘to take steps within their respective capacities to facilitate the protection of actual and virtual spaces of communication, including access to the Internet and infrastructure, in order to enable individuals and peoples to share solidarity ideas’ (draft art 8(3)). In this post concluding the Special Symposium ‘You’re Not Alone: Normative Debates on (Digital) Solidarity in International Law and Policy’, we hear Prof Okafor’s reflections on a variety of themes concerning the intersection between the digital sphere, human rights and international solidarity in light of the above work and beyond.

Across the world, public attention has increasingly turned towards two challenges of global proportions: the catastrophic and unequal impacts of climate change and the kinetic development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Driven by an extractivist growth-oriented economic system with roots traceable to the colonial encounter, climate change has left the world teetering on the edge of ‘irreversible’ breakdown, with marginalised communities particularly impacted by its inequitably distributed and existentially destructive effects. At the same time, fuelled by the extraction of vast amounts of raw materials and data, AI technologies have ushered in intensified forms of surveillance, control, and discrimination dominated by a small number of large technology companies, which have accumulated forms of ‘structural power’ that enable them to influence and circumscribe how communities, corporations and States interact and relate with one another. Despite the intersecting nature of climate change and AI technologies, policymaking has tended to remain remarkably compartmentalised. The EU’s Digital Services package, for example, is notable for neglecting to expressly confront the environmental and sustainability concerns of digital platforms. Where intersections are acknowledged, the relationship is often perceived to be harmonious – with AI invoked as a technological saviour for society’s ecological challenges. While amendments to the EU’s proposed AI Act signal some movement towards confronting the environmental concerns of AI technologies, tensions between the two tend to be defined in narrow technical terms focused on energy costs.

Across the world, public attention has increasingly turned towards two challenges of global proportions: the catastrophic and unequal impacts of climate change and the kinetic development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Driven by an extractivist growth-oriented economic system with roots traceable to the colonial encounter, climate change has left the world teetering on the edge of ‘irreversible’ breakdown, with marginalised communities particularly impacted by its inequitably distributed and existentially destructive effects. At the same time, fuelled by the extraction of vast amounts of raw materials and data, AI technologies have ushered in intensified forms of surveillance, control, and discrimination dominated by a small number of large technology companies, which have accumulated forms of ‘structural power’ that enable them to influence and circumscribe how communities, corporations and States interact and relate with one another. Despite the intersecting nature of climate change and AI technologies, policymaking has tended to remain remarkably compartmentalised. The EU’s Digital Services package, for example, is notable for neglecting to expressly confront the environmental and sustainability concerns of digital platforms. Where intersections are acknowledged, the relationship is often perceived to be harmonious – with AI invoked as a technological saviour for society’s ecological challenges. While amendments to the EU’s proposed AI Act signal some movement towards confronting the environmental concerns of AI technologies, tensions between the two tend to be defined in narrow technical terms focused on energy costs.

Solidarity is an important principle that spans many areas of international law and policy such as human rights, trade, peace and security, criminal justice and environmental protection. In a landmark resolution, the UN Human Rights Council acknowledged that ‘[t]he same rights that people have offline must also be protected online’. This establishes a ‘normative equivalency’ between online and offline rights. Thus, for instance, the right to freedom of expression, safeguarded by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is equally valid for online expression. This normative equivalency applies to the enjoyment of other human rights, including solidarity rights.

The US Government announced on October 30th that the Central African Republic (CAR), Gabon, Niger, and Uganda will be removed from the list of 35 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries that are eligible for market access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The announcement came on the eve of the 20th AGOA Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa, on the 2nd to 4th of November 2023. According to the US Government, CAR and Uganda have engaged in gross violations of internationally recognised human rights. This paper reflects on the decision, which is not the first by the Biden administration in the last few years. This paper argues that the recent decision by the US is an example of developed countries using trade incentives and sanctions to achieve their geopolitical interests in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) under the pretext of promoting human rights standards.

Dr. Oyeniyi Abe’s book, Implementing Business and Human Rights Norms in Africa: Law and Policy Intervention, is a timely intervention in the field of business and human rights. The book focuses on interpreting and implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in Africa through legal and policy frameworks.

The recently released book by Oyeniyi Abe: Implementing Business and Human Rights Norms in Africa (Routledge 2022) is a comprehensive analysis of human and environmental rights impact of business activities in Africa. The book discusses conceptual and practical issues arising in the Business and Human Rights (BHRs) landscape in Africa. Furthermore, the book contains instructive developments on competing theories on corporate international human rights obligations and the range of remedies available to rights holders and 'victims' of corporate misconduct. Even more, commanding is the author's choice to present in accessible manner case studies of Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa.