RE: SHOOT AT SIGHT FOR BALLOT BOX
SNATCHERS

(1). UNITED NATIONS BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE USE OF FORCE AND FIREARMS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

Principle 2 – Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

Principle 4 – Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

Principle 5 – Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment; (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

Principle 7 – Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

Principle 8 – Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles

Principle 9 – Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

Principle 10 – In the circumstances provided for under principle 9, law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.

Principle 24 – Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that superior officers are held responsible if they know, or should have known, that law enforcement officials under their command are resorting, or have resorted, to the unlawful use of force and firearms, and they did not take all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use.

Principle 25 – Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that no criminal or disciplinary sanction is imposed on law enforcement officials who, in compliance with the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and these basic principles, refuse to carry out an order to use force and firearms, or who report such use by other officials.

Principle 26 – Obedience to superior orders shall be no defence if law enforcement officials knew that an order to use force and firearms resulting in the death or serious injury of a person was manifestly unlawful and had a reasonable opportunity to refuse to follow it. In any case, responsibility also rests on the superiors who gave the unlawful orders.
From
Nonso Attoh

(2). Hon Justice Onu, J.S.C said in IBIKUNLE V. STATE  (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1019) 546,

“I am in agreement with the respondent that these statutory defences implied in these provisions set out above cannot avail the appellant, more so THAT NONE OF THEM GRANTED HIM A LICENSE TO SUMMARILY EXECUTE THE DECEASED EXTRA JUDICIALLY. Even if the deceased were to be a thief or a person of dubious character, which the evidence on record does not disclose him as one, the provisions of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law (ibid) quoted above DID NOT LICENSE THE APPELLANT TO BE THE COMPLAINANT, INVESTIGATOR, JUDGE AS WELL AS EXECUTIONER, ALL ROLLED INTO ONE… It is a misconception of the provisions of Section 7(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) for the appellant to contend that the use of firearm was reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Even if the deceased were to be a thief or a person of dubious character, a fact not disclosed on the record, the provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law (ibid), did not license the appellant to be the complainant, investigator, as well as the Judge and executioner, all rolled into one… THE USE OF THE FIREARM WAS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, HIGHLY INTIMIDATING AND UNCALLED FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. This is because as found by the court below, the deceased did not pose any scintilla of danger to the appellant. It was mischievous and unreasonable for the appellant to break the window of the deceased’s apartment, threw teargas into the room and then jumped into the apartment to callously release or pump bullets into the deceased.
(capitalization supplied for emphasis)
From
NONSO ATTOH

(3). W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C, stated in IBIKUNKE V. STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (pt 1019) 546

“The law does not permit or license any person, be he a policeman or soldier or otherwise to be the complainant, investigator, Judge and executioner all at the same time. In the circumstance of this case and particularly having regard to the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and section 7(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure … appellant has no legal right to summarily execute any person who refuses him ingress into an apartment that he believes a suspect is hiding…. I am compelled by the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the now notorious extra judicial killings of innocent people by some members of the Nigeria Police to condemn the inability of some members of the police force to realize that the foundation of the police institution is preservation of life and property.”

From NONSO ATTOH

Source:

https://thenigerialawyer.com/limitations-to-the-right-to-life-and-the-use-of-force-against-violators-of-electoral-law-by-nonso-robert-attoh/

Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and came into force in 1981.
CEDAW is commonly referred to as the international bill of rights for women. It defines what constitutes discrimination against women and girls and sets out a comprehensive framework for tackling gender inequality.

THE ARTICLES
Article 1 - Definition of ‘discrimination against women’
Discrimination against women includes any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex that has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying women’s enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. This is irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women.

Article 2 - Duty of States
States agree to pursue by all appropriate means a policy of eliminating discrimination against women, undertaking to take concrete steps to eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices in the national legal framework.

Article 3 - Equality
States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development and advancement of women so as to guarantee them the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. This is in all fields but in particular the political, social, economic and cultural fields.

Article 4 - Special measures
States are allowed to adopt temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality for women until the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. States are allowed to adopt special measures aimed at protecting maternity.

Article 5 - Stereotyping and cultural prejudices
States shall take appropriate measures to eliminate stereotyping, prejudices and discriminatory cultural practices. States shall also ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the roles of men and women in the upbringing of their children.

Article 6 - Trafficking and prostitution
States shall take all measures to stop all forms of trafficking and the exploitation of prostitution of women.

Article 7 - Political and public life
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to vote, hold public office and participate in civil society.

Article 8 - Participation at the international level
States shall ensure that women are allowed to represent their governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organisations.

Article 9 - Nationality
States shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality and also equal rights in respect of their children’s nationality.

Article 10 - Education
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men in education, including equal access to schools, vocational training, curricula and educational resources. States shall eliminate stereotypes of the roles of women and men through revising school materials and teaching methods.

Article 11 - Employment
States shall ensure that women the same opportunities as men in employment, promotion, training, equal remuneration, social security and safe working conditions. Women must also be protected in respect of pregnancy, maternity and marital status.

Article 12 - Health
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to access to health care services, including reproductive health services.

Article 13 - Economic and social benefits
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men to family benefits, bank loans and other forms of financial credit. Women must also be allowed to participate equally in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life.

Article 14 - Rural women
States shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas so that they can participate in and benefit from health care, education, social security, development planning etc equally with men.

Article 15 - Equality before the law
States shall ensure that women and men are treated equally before the law. Women have the same legal right to enter contracts, own property and choose their place of residence.

Article 16 - Marriage and family life
States shall ensure that women have equal rights with men in relation to marriage and as parents, as well as in respect of other aspects of family life.

Articles 17 - 24
These articles describe the composition and procedures of the CEDAW
Committee, the relationship between CEDAW and national and international
legislation and the obligation of States to take all steps necessary to implement CEDAW in full.

Articles 25 - 30 - Administration of CEDAW
These articles describe the general administrative procedures concerning
enforcement of CEDAW, ratification and entering reservations.

The auguries already favor a decisive Atiku win in the forthcoming February 16 election, and the biggest electoral shock may actually come from the northwest, hitherto Buhari’s impregnable electoral fortress. The silent majority of voters in the region will ventilate their pent-up anger and frustration against Buhari in ways that will signal a tectonic disruption of the habitual voting patterns of the region. At this point, Buhari isn’t a threat to Atiku. INEC Chairman Professor Mahmood Yakubu is actually Atiku’s most potent threat now. Here is why.

A brother of the INEC chairman’s close friend confided in me today that the electoral boss has a deep-seated animus toward Atiku and has made many nasty, unkind remarks about Atiku in private. That, in and of itself, is not the problem. We are all entitled to our personal predispositions and biases as long as they don’t interfere with our judgement on occasions that invite our neutrality and fairmindedness.

However, the same source told me the INEC chairman has a profound personal investment in APC’s electoral successes, like Maurice Iwu had in PDP’s victories. He said the INEC chairman told his friend that he was going to hand victory to APC in the Osun governorship election even though PDP clearly and handily won it. Buhari’s unguardedly candid confession on January 27 at the banquet hall of the Osun State Government House that APC won the Osun governorship election with “remote control” is the biggest corroboration of this previously uncirculated whisper.

The go-to rhetorical strategy to impeach the credibility of uncomfortable, anonymous but veridical revelations like this is to call them “fake” and to dismiss them as ill motivated. Well, I’ve confirmed the INEC chairman’s ill will against and active personal hostility toward Atiku from other credible sources that should know. I’m so sure of my information that I can swear by Allah that Professor Yakubu isn’t neutral toward Atiku and has said unmentionably disparaging things about him in private. I invoke the wrath of Allah upon me if I am making this up. I hope Professor Yakubu, who is a Muslim like me and with whom I have personal familiarity, can do the same.

I concede that INEC has taken many admirable actions in the past few months that point to some degree of independence. It has also conducted a few elections in which APC lost, but that may just be window-dressing to conceal plans for the grand presidential electoral heist on February 16. The world needs to know that the INEC chairman isn’t neutral toward all the presidential candidates. There are many other disturbing things I’ve heard about the INEC chair that I’ll withhold for now because I haven’t independently confirmed them. It suffices to say, nonetheless, that the INEC chairman is NOT a neutral arbiter in the forthcoming election. Domestic and international observers—and Atiku’s agents—should observe him with heightened sensitivity. This is not Attahiru Jega; this is a less evil version of Maurice Iwu.