In what was an exasperating and dejected incident which occurred yesterday which was 1/19/2015 during the #occupy playground demonstrations, where pupils alongside teachers were fired upon teargas as they protested and picketed over the alleged land grabbing of the school playground in which the children used for among other things physical education.
It is a vile practice to grab public land especially a children's playground.
This is what necessitated the demonstrations as the playground had been fenced already.
News reports can be viewed on this link-
As a result of the dispersion five children were seriously injured.
So serious questions arise:
Was the act of using teargas on children necessary?
Were the armed police acting in excess of force?
What is the position of the law?
The 2010 Constitution under the Bill of Rights whose supreme role is to grant us rights. This rights are inherent in every individual and are not granted by the state as such they also belong to children. As such the state is bound to respect,protect,promote and fulfill according to the yardstick ruling laid down by the African Commission in the decision of S.E.R.A.C v Nigeria.
It is of worthy mention that at Article 21(3) the state must take extra measures to protect the vulnerable in society, children fit this category
The children in demonstrating were exercising their constitutionally enshrined rights which are the freedom of expression(Art 33(1)) and right to peaceably and unarmed demonstrate, picket and assembly (Art 37)
The reason for the protest is clear,the alleged grabbing of the school playground. Education is wide enough to transgress the walls of intellectual education to the arena of physical education this is to ensure a stable growth system of mind and body.
This rights are not absolute however in limiting them the state must ensure that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable- Was it justifiable to teargas primary school children? The children were unarmed and were peaceably demonstrating.They did not pose any threat to the police.
Were there any less restrictive means. It may be practice for police to use teargas to disperse crowds,but his crowds are normally of adult demonstrators or even university students but never primary school children who are easily cowered by adults.The state is bound to protect the vulnerable in society and as such they should have dispersed the children using a less severe method other than using tear gas which caused the children sensory irritation, this was followed by wails as the little children suffered massively at this never experienced before sensory irritation.
In finding that the police acted in excess o their force what rights of the children were violated?
According to Article 53(1)(d) Children are to be protected from cruel, all forms of violence and any inhuman treatment and punishment in analyzing the Human Rights Committee advises in Vuolanne v Finland that we put into account :
The duration and manner of the treatment: the use of riot agents as teargas lasts between 15 minutes t 30 depending on the extent and duration of exposure.
Its physical or mental effects: the physical effects are sensory irritation in the eyes and throat. As for the mental effects the children who are not yet of majority age were greatly traumatized by the incident this is evidenced by the news clips of their collective screams
The age of the victims:this are primary school children and this is where the bone of contention arises the Act of teargassing young children violated Article 53(1)(d) which protects children against inhuman treatment or punishment.
Taking into account the best interests principles under Article 53(2), the police grossly did not take into account that in every matter concerning the child,their best interests must be paramount, not teargassing them to prevent a demonstration!
According to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee it was held in Aduayom, Diasso and Dobou v Togo that citizens must be allowed to criticize and publicly evaluate their
governments without fear of interference or punishment, this is distinctly contrary to what happened.
The right to not be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment is a right that can not be limited under Article 25(a).
The bill of rights binds all organs of the state(Article 20(1)) and responsibility for actions of state agents is attributed to the state itself.
As a result the legal giants L.S.K have plans in order to prosecute the officers who were involved in the incident.
The bill of rights binds all organs of the state(Article 20(1)) and responsibility for actions of state agents is attributed to the state itself.
As a result the legal giants L.S.K have plans in order to prosecute the officers who were involved in the incident.
No comments:
Post a Comment