October, 21 2008, 11:21am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Nigeria: "Waiting For The Hangman"
ABUJA, Nigeria
Amnesty International today said that hundreds of those
awaiting execution on Nigeria's death rows did not have a fair trial
and may therefore be innocent. The organization exposed a catalogue of
failings in the country's criminal justice system, saying that it is
"riddled with corruption, negligence and a nearly criminal lack of
resources".
At a press conference in Abuja to release a comprehensive report on
the death penalty in Nigeria, the organization called on the government
to establish an immediate moratorium on executions in light of its
findings.
Joining in the call was the Legal Defence and Assistance Project
(LEDAP), a Nigerian legal organization working to promote good
governance and the rule of law in Nigeria. LEDAP co-authored the report
released today.
"It is truly horrifying to think of how many innocent people may
have been executed and may still be executed," said Aster van Kregten,
Amnesty International's Nigeria researcher, speaking from Abuja. "The
judicial system is riddled with flaws that can have devastating
consequences. For those accused of capital crimes, the effects are
obviously deadly and irreversible."
Some of the most serious findings revealed in Amnesty International and LEDAP's report, "Nigeria: Waiting for the Hangman":
- Confessions: most death penalty convictions are based on confessions alone. Confessions are often extracted under torture.
- Torture: although prohibited in Nigeria, in practice torture by
police occurs on a daily basis. Almost 80 percent of inmates in
Nigerian prisons say they have been beaten, threatened with weapons or
tortured in police cells. - Delays: death penalty trials can take more than 10 years to
conclude; some appeals have been pending for 14, 17 and even 24 years. - Negligence: many death row prisoners cannot even have their appeals heard because their case files have been lost.
- Conditions: life on death row is extremely harsh. Prisoners whose
appeals are over are held in cells where they can see executions. After
a prisoner has been hanged, other death row prisoners are forced to
clean the gallows. - Children: although international law prohibits the use of the death
penalty against child offenders, at least 40 death row prisoners were
aged between 13 and 17 at the time of their alleged offence.
The majority of those on death row were sentenced to death based on
a confession - in many cases, extracted under torture, according to
Amnesty International and LEDAP research.
"The police are over-stretched and under-resourced," said Aster van
Kregten. "Because of this, they rely heavily on confessions to 'solve'
crimes - rather than on expensive investigations. Convictions based on
such confessions are obviously very unsafe."
"Under Nigerian law, if a suspect confesses under pressure, threat
or torture, it cannot be used as evidence in court," said Chino
Obiagwu, LEDAP's National Coordinator. "Judges know that there is
widespread torture by the police - and yet they continue to sentence
suspects to death based on these confessions, leading to many possibly
innocent people being sentenced to death."
Due to high crime rates, there is pressure on police to make quick
arrests when a crime has been committed. Sometimes, if the police are
unable to find a suspect, they arrest the wife, mother or brother of
the suspect instead - or even a witness - in violation of Nigerian
criminal procedure.
Jafar is 57 years old and has been on death row since 1984. He told Amnesty International:
"I am not an armed robber. I am a shoemaker. I bought a [motorcycle]
from someone who stole it. The police asked me to be a witness. They
got the man who sold [me] the [motorcycle] but shot him to death. After
that, I became the suspect."
Jafar filed an appeal 24 years ago, but is still waiting for it to be heard. His case file has gone missing.
"The hundreds of people who have already been executed or are still
awaiting execution in Nigeria all have one thing in common - they are
poor," said Chino Obiagwu. "Speaking to those languishing on death row,
it becomes clear that questions of guilt and innocence are almost
irrelevant in Nigeria's criminal justice system. It is all about if you
can afford to pay to keep yourself out of the system - whether that
means paying the police to adequately investigate your case, paying for
a lawyer to defend you or paying to have your name put on a list of
those eligible for pardon."
"Those with the fewest resources are at the greatest risk in Nigeria's criminal justice system."
Many prisoners awaiting trial and on death row told Amnesty
International and LEDAP that the police picked them up and asked for
money to release them. Those who couldn't pay were treated as suspected
armed robbers.
Other death row prisoners told Amnesty International that they were
arrested when they went to a police station to report a crime they had
witnessed. Police demanded money for their release. Sometime police
asked for money for fuel, without which they could not visit witnesses
or check alibis.
Nigeria's death row - key facts:
- Numbers on death row: As of February 2008, 725 men and 11 women.
Age at time of crime: At least 40 prisoners were under 18. - Criminal conviction: about 53% were convicted of murder, 38% armed robbery and 8% robbery.
Years on death row: One prisoner has spent 24 years on death row, 7 have spent more than 20 years, and 28 more than 15 years. - Appeal: 47% are waiting for their appeal to be concluded, 41% have never filed an appeal.
Duration of appeals: 25% of prisoners' appeals have lasted more than 5
years. 6% of prisoners with appeals outstanding have waited more than
20 years. - Location: most prisoners were convicted in Imo (56), Ogun (52) and Oyo (49) states.
Key death penalty facts:
- World trends: In 1977, just 16 countries had abolished the death
penalty for all crimes. Today, 137 out of 192 UN member states have
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. - Africa: Africa is largely free of executions, with only 7 of the
African Union's 53 member states known to have carried out executions
in 2007. 13 African countries are abolitionist in law and a further 22
are abolitionist in practice. - Nigeria: Executions are shrouded in secrecy. The Nigerian
government has not officially reported any executions since 2002,
although it is known that at least 7 condemned prisoners - including 6
who never had an appeal - were secretly executed in 2006.
To see a full copy of the report Nigeria: "Waiting for the Hangman", please click here.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular