Follow Us on Google
At the outset of the outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic , numerous states worldwide rolled out a patch work of different human rights restrictions. The measures touched nearly every aspect of daily life. Understandably, the emergency’s immediacy requires a quick and efficient reaction from states, and appropriate, however aggressive , restrictions and exercise of human rights were imposed without a proper legal basis in both domestic and international laws.
Basic human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, the right to assemble and move freely. Everyone is entitled to these rights without any form of discrimination.
Chapter 4 of CFRN 1999 provides for the fundamental rights of citizens, such as; the right to life, right to liberty, freedom of movement, right of association and freedom of thoughts and freedom of lawful assembly amongst others.
The COVID-19 pandemic was novel and its rapid spread caught the world ill prepared. The global community imposed restrictions on people’s lives in a bid to contain the spread of the virus and save lives.
The world is walking a tight rope to find the balance between saving lives from coronavirus, and allowing people the hard-won freedom that are the frame work of those lives – such as a right to family and private life to freedom of assembly and to an education.
During the lockdown, there were reported cases of overzealous security agents killing persons who violated the restriction orders, thereby depriving the victims of the right to life contrary to Section 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution .
Also, in a bid to protect the lives of others, people with the disease were either quarantined or isolated and denied family visitation and as such robbed of their right to privacy and family when they needed them most as provided in Sections 37 of CFRN 1999 as amended.
Asking people to stay at home may look like a simple instruction but under intense scrutiny, it had its own drawbacks on basic human rights. The lockdown measures adopted by states denied those that needed access to social and health care facilities the right to receive the kind of quality health care they deserved. Mandatory testing violated the person’s right to self -autonomy and dignity just like limited contact between health care providers and patients had its own debilitating consequences on quality health care delivery which is linked to right to life.
The pandemic, besides forcing business closures, also forced the closure of schools. Millions of students around the world were forced to stay at home. The alternative online teaching hurriedly put together in developing countries yielded poor outcome. Only those with internet access were able to get education, but for millions of others with no access to expensive gadgets and internets, their right to education was grossly deprived.
Businesses, including public markets were forcefully shut down, thus putting millions of people out of job and denying them legitimate source of livelihood. The global economy is still struggling to recover from the disruption caused by the pandemic and measures adopted to contain the spread.
There have been reinvigorated questions as per the origin of the coronavirus, thus leading to suppression of freedom of thoughts and expressions. One of such hypotheses was the zoonotic theory which tried to lend credence that the probable cause of the disease was from animal to person spill over, probably from an animal sold at wildlife market in Wuhan, China. This hypothesis which is now considered plausible by experts was initially dismissed by the scientific world as “conspiracy theory’’.
Doctors and scientists have had their homes invaded by police, faced imprisonment and lost their jobs because they questioned the COVID-19 narrative, a new study has discovered.
The true extent of the censorship and suppression of doctors and scientists who did not follow the mainstream narrative of the COVID-19 pandemic is finally coming to light. Scientists have lost their jobs and doctors have been barred for speaking out against lockdowns, mask-wearing and vaccinations or offering effective treatments.
One doctor has had a $1 million lawsuit filed against him for taking an alternate view, and another had his home raided by police, who didn’t even have a warrant.
Dr Jackie Stone, a doctor in Zimbabwe who successfully treated COVID-19 patients with ivermectin and colloidal silver, faces imprisonment, and many other doctors—such as leading cardiologist Peter McCullough—may lose their licences.
Scientific papers have been retracted and their authors have lost their posts at universities and research centres or been “named and shamed” by medical authorities.
These examples are just a snapshot of the backlash against dissenters and are based on interviews that Israeli researchers have carried out with just 13 doctors and scientists who have questioned the narrative. This superficial analysis suggests that many thousands more have lost their jobs and had their reputations trammelled by authorities who have worked hand-in-glove with governments, mainstream media and websites, including social media platforms to silence alternative voices.
Peter Daszack, president EcoHealth – a company that was deeply involved in gain for function research in China allegedly compelled members of the scientific community to sign a letter published in February 2020 in the Lancet- one of the world’s most esteemed medical journals- criticizing the suggestion that a laboratory accident ( a not common occurrence in either China or the West) could have been involved.
“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours and prejudice that jeopardize our global collaboration in the fight against the virus, the letter said.
However, after the extent of EcoHealth Alliances work in China was exposed in 2021, the Lancet had to publish an addendum acknowledging Daszack’s potential conflict of interest.
Lancet’s later day addendum didn’t diminish the fact, that the scientific community, the media and governments deprived persons with contrary opinion as per the origin and treatment protocol of the virus the basic rights to freedom of thought and expression. Sections 38 and 39 of the 1999 CFRN provides for right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion , as well as right to freedom of expression at the press. These constitutional rights were deprived persons that questioned the virus origin and treatment protocol. In some instances, health care providers and scientist who proffered alternative answers were roundly condemned and imposed with punitive sanctions.
There were also reported cases of right to freedom of assembly and right to freedom of movement being abridged contrary to Sections 40 and 41 of CFRN 1999 as amended. People were denied access to places of worship as restrictions were generally imposed against outdoor events such as religious gathering, sports, markets, educational institutions etc. Where some flexibility were allowed, other restrictive measures such as mandatory washing of hands, sanitizing, face masking and social distancing were punitively imposed.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the human rights dimension of the pandemic restrictive measures had far reaching impact on basic human rights. Under the European Convention, Article 15 of the convention provides for the derogation of such classical rights in times of emergency. In like manner Section 45 of CFRN 1999 provides for restriction and derogation from fundamental rights whereby it asserts that ‘nothing in section 37, 38, 39,40 and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society’- (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order , public morality and public health’.
In spite of the restrictive and derogatory clauses, this study recommends that future handling of pandemics should also consider human rights implications. The regulations should have human face and will require the input of the people
