NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTERNALLY

DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) IN NIGERIA

BYProf. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan (PhD)

Professor of Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law,

Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria+2348037015634

mtladan@gmail.com, mtladan@live.com or mtladan@ymail.com

BEING A PRESENTATION MADE AT A WORKSHOP FOR JUDGES AND

KADIS ON REFUGEE LAW

ORGANIZED BYTHE NATIONAL JUDICIAL

INSTITUTE, ABUJA

DATE: - APRIL 20, 2013

NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) IN NIGERIA

BYProf. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan (PhD)

INTRODUCTION

It is a paradox that Nigeria is a rich1 country inhabited by the poor2 and accounts for

about 13% (1.4 million) of Africa’s 11.1 million people internally displaced by conflict and

generalized violence at the end of 2010.3 This does not include internal displacement4 induced

by development projects5 that are regulated by states. Between July and October 2012, NEMA

estimated in a published report that a total of 7.7 million people were affected by the flood

disaster across the federation. Out of the affected population 2.1 million people were internally

displaced (IDPs); 363 persons died and 18,282 people were treated for injuries they sustained

during the flooding.6

In the early 2006, the increasing number of IDPs due to conflict induced internal

displacement informed the Nigerian Government to consider a National Policy on IDPs the draft

1 The 2011 Human Development Index (HDI) released on Nov. 2, 2011 by the UNDP places Nigeria 156 out of 187 countries on UN quality of life index in terms of education, income and life expectancy. Nigeria, Africa’s Second biggest economy and largest producer of oil with a Gross national income (GNI) per capita of 2,069 dollars, lags behind Equatorial Guinea (17,068 USD), Botswana (13,049 USD) and Gabon (12,249 USD). Quoted from the Daily Trust Newspaper, Abuja, November 3, 2011 at p.2; See also Trust Index Daily Trust, January 10, 2012 at P.15.2 Ibid.3 In 2010, the 21 African States monitored by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) accounted for 11.1 million people that were internally displaced by conflict and generalised violence at the end of 2010. See www.internal-displacement.org/countires/Nigeria - visited on Jan 10, 2012.

In January 2011, the National Commission for Refugees (NCFR), Abuja, revealed the existence of about 1.4 million IDPs in Nigeria due to complex causes. See NCFR, Abuja, a paper presented by the Federal Commissioner to the Canadian Embassy delegation on Jan 10th 2011, table 1 titled: - Persons of concern to the NCFR in Nigeria.4 See Article 1 of the African Union Convention (Kampala Convention) for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa, 2009.5 Such as urban development programmes, the creation of industrial parks, infrastructure projects or industrial processes such as natural resource extraction.6 See NEMA Newsletter Vol. 4 No 11 November 2012 at p.3

2

of which was tabled for consideration in 2007 but the Obasanjo administration could not adopt

it.7 The draft was revised thrice in 2009 and 2010-11 and by December 2011, it remains a draft

yet to be adopted.8 This draft was further revised by a team of consultants and Multi-

Stakeholders Forum between 30 May and August 2012. This revised draft is also awaiting

adoption by the federal government.

Having recognized that in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world, IDPs9 are amongst the

most vulnerable populations for obvious reasons,10 the Federal Government of Nigeria signed11

and approved the ratification12 of the African Union (Kampala Convention) for the Protection

and Assistance of IDPs in Africa.13 Nigeria formally ratified the convention on 17 April 2012.

In July 2011, the First Ministerial Conference on Humanitarian Assistance and Internal

Displacement in West Africa organized by the Economic Community of West African States

(ECOWAS) in Abuja, under the leadership of Nigeria, underscored the importance of every

African Union Member State to signing, ratifying, domesticating and implementing the Kampala

Convention.14 More importantly, the Conference stressed the need to strengthen good

governance and the full respect of all human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) in

ECOWAS member states, with a view to preventing internal displacement, notably caused by

7 Official reason unknown to this author, but believed by many analysts to be largely bureaucratic tendency or misplacement of priorities. The Government was not influenced by the recommendations and resolutions of the 1 st

Regional Conference on internal displacement in West Africa, held between April 26-28, 2006 in Abuja and hosted by the Federal Government of Nigeria in collaboration with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of IDPs and the Brookings Institution – University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement. One of the recommendations of the Conference was that ECOWAS Member States should undertake measures to address the root causes of internal displacement including developing laws and policies on IDPs consistent with states obligations under international human rights and humanitarian laws.8 See the Foreword to the Draft National Policy on IDP dated March 11 2011 made by the then Minister for Special Duties, Abuja. Also, see the same Foreword to the same draft policy dated September 6 2011, in Abuja, made by President Jonathan.9 For the definition of IDPs, see Article 1(k) of the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa adopted by the AU Special Summit in Kampala, Uganda, on 23 October 2009.10 Such as: - they have no special legal status under international law because upon displacement, they remain within their national borders and therefore, rarely receive the assistance and protection afforded refugees.11 Date of signature: 30 October 2010.12 On Wednesday, 14 September 2011, the Federal Executive Council in Abuja approved the ratification of the Kampala Convention on IDPs but yet to be deposited at the AU Secretariat in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia as required by article 16(2) of the Convention.13 The Kampala Convention on IDPs needing 15 ratifications under article 17(1) is yet to come into force as of 7 July 2011. Signed by 32 and ratified by 12 AU States including five ECOWAS Member States: - Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone and Togo.14 See Para 10 of the Preamble to the Final Communiqué of the Conference dated 7 July 2011 in Abuja, Nigeria.

3

the lack thereof, or emanating from conflict and generalized violence and mitigating its

devastating effects on the region’s citizens.15

It is against this background that this article aims at realizing the following objectives: -

1. To provide conceptual clarification of the following relevant key terms; internal

Displacement, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), Disaster and Disaster

Management as well as Forced Displacement;

2. To discuss the complex causes and impact of internal displacement on IDPs in

Nigeria;

3. To provide an overview of the legal, policy and institutional frameworks for the

protection and assistance to IDPs in Nigeria.

1. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMS

1.1 Internal Displacement

Article 1(l) of the AU Kampala Convention on IDPs in Africa defines it as: - “the

involuntary or forced movement, evacuation or relocation of persons or groups of persons

within internationally recognized state borders”;

1.2 Internally Displaced Persons

Article I(k) of the AU Convention on IDPs in Africa equally defines IDPs as: - “persons or

groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of

habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict,

situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made

disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”;

1.3 Disaster/Emergency

Disaster is defined as a serious disruption of the functioning of a society with

widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of affected

society to cope using only its own resources. (UNDP).

15 Ibid, points 1-3 of the Conference declaration contained in the Communiqué.

4

Emergency is a situation in which lives and property are at risk and outside intervention

or unusual initiatives by the group or community affected is needed. A disaster is a type of

emergency that occurs in specific, limited time period. Emergencies can encompass a more

general time period.(Cws/Act Emergency Management Training Program. 2001).

Disaster Management

Disaster Management is the coordination and integration of all activities necessary to

build, sustain and improve the capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to and recover

from threatening or actual natural or human-induced disasters. (NDMF).

Disaster Management can also be defined as the coordination and integration of all

activities necessary to build, sustain and improve the capability for disaster prevention,

mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

1.5 Forced Displacement

Forced displacement refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced

people (those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural hazard or

environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects.

(Ecowas Emergency Response Team Training Workshop For EERT Specialists,2001)

1.5.1 Causes of Forced Displacement

• Conflict-Induced Displacement

• People forced to flee their homes for one or more of the following reasons and where

the state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect them: armed conflict including

civil war; generalized violence

• Development-Induced Displacement

• People compelled to move as a result of policies and projects implemented to

supposedly enhance ‘development’. Examples of this include large-scale infrastructure

projects such as dams, roads, ports, airports

• Disaster-Induced Displacement

5

• This category includes people displaced as a result of natural hazards induced disasters

(floods, volcanoes, landslides, earthquakes), environmental change (deforestation,

desertification, land degradation, global warming) and human-made induced disasters

(industrial accidents, radioactivity).

Becoming displaced within one’s own country does not confer special legal status in the

same sense as does becoming a refugee. IDPs remain citizens or habitual residents of a

particular country and continue to be entitled to enjoy the rights available to the population as

a whole. However, because of their special situation, specific needs and the heightened

vulnerability that flow from the fact of being displaced, they are entitled to special protection

and assistance.

Decree 52 of 1989 assigns the management of refugees to National Commission for

Refugees (NCFR) while Act 12 of 1999 as amended by Act 50 saddles the management of IDPs

with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

1.5.3 Effect of Forced Displacement

• National and Local institutions- strain on infrastructures like hospitals, police (security),

educational systems etc.

• IDPs and Host Communities: tensions between the IDPs and the host communities

sometimes due to concentration of assistance to IDPs, scarcity of resources for

distribution, livelihood activities.

• Human Rights Abuses: Assaults, rape etc

• Economic growth: productive people become redundant, resources are destroyed etc.

• Environmental sustainability: environmental degradation as a result of disaster

2. COMPLEX CAUSES AND IMPACT OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT ON IDPs IN NIGERIA

2.1 Causes of Internal Displacement in Nigeria

In Nigeria, most of the incidences of internal displacement occur because of violent

conflicts with ethnic religious and political undertones.16 Thousands are annually internally 16 Ibid at pp. 1-2. See also the Draft National Policy on IDPs in Nigeria, supra note 7; and IDMC supra note 3.

6

displaced as a result of natural disasters17 including flooding in the North and West, erosion in

the East, oil spillage and development projects in the Niger Delta (South-South).18 Some

incidences also occur because of clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers19 and between

government forces and armed groups.20 This is in addition to the Bakassi returnees21 that were

internally displaced from the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula that was handed over by Nigeria to

Cameroon in 2008 resulting from 10 October 2002 ruling of the International Court of Justice.22

Analysts have always expressed fears that the level of conflict and with it the level of

internal displacement, may increase each time general elections23 year draw nearer. These fears

were confirmed when the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) reported that

about 65,000 persons were displaced internally due to post-election violence and are spread

across the following six Northern states: - Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano, Niger, Katsina and Sokoto.24

17 Recently, the Nigerian Red Cross Society revealed that in 2010 alone about 1.5 million people were affected nationwide. The Red Cross carried out a vulnerability analysis and identified about 5,000 vulnerable families were most affected by the 2010 floods. See the Proceedings of the Multi-stakeholders conference, supra note 17.18 See the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Nairobi, Kenya (2011): - Report on Environmental Assessment of Ogoni land, Niger Delta region, Nigeria.19 Where farmers and cattle breeders or Fulani Pastoralists or grazers live in the same geographic space, violent clashes often occur over claims of trespass. The literature on the Nigeria’s pastoral development suggests that the major environmental limitations to Fulani herdsmen are water and grass shortages, which account for their frequent movement from one place to another. Added to this is the absence of the right conditions for grazing lands in Nigeria. See Ladan M. T., Materials and Cases on Environmental Law in Nigeria (2004) (ECONET Publishing Co. Zaria, Nigeria, at pp. 108-111.20 Such as the Muslim youth religious militia otherwise known as ‘Boko Haram’ whose deadly activities in the North-Eastern part of Nigeria has resulted in the massive displacement of affected population in the last three years and attracted the declaration of the State emergency in Borno and Yobe states among others, on 31 st

December 2011 by President Jonathan,21 The case of the Bakassi returnees is unique in the sense that about 400,000 Nigerians were displaced when Nigeria finally ceded Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon on 14 th August 2008, with a large number of them moving to Cross Rivers and Akwa-Ibom States of Niger Delta region. Hence, the indigenous people were left landless, homeless and cut off from their means of livelihood for years. See NCFR Abuja 2011, supra note 3. See also Tony Nyong: ‘Bakassi returnees overwhelm Akwa-Ibom’, in Sunday Vanguard, Lagos, 31st August 2008.22 Dispute over ownership of Bakassi Peninsula postcolonial period continued for many years and climaxed in 1981 when Nigeria and Cameroon took the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 29 th March 1994, for final determination by the World Court. In its judgement of 10 th October 2002, the ICJ gave Bakassi to Cameroon based largely on a 1913 Treaty between former colonial powers, Britain and Germany, which defined spheres of Control in the region as well as two agreements signed between Nigeria and Cameroon in 1971 and 1975.23 See Ladan M.T. and Aisha I.K. (ed.) (2005): - Election Violence in Nigeria. AFSTRAG – Nigeria, Lagos with support from the Ford Foundation. For the analysis of the factors responsible for pre, during and post election violence in Nigeria.24 Quoted from the 9pm National Network News broadcast on Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Abuja on April 22, 2011. Per the Director-General of NEMA, Abuja. To date majority of such IDPs are still in camps with no hope of return, while others are unseen or uncared for due to lack of political will for durable solution to the plight of IDPs in Nigeria.

7

Recent findings25 have shown that the plight of Internally Displaced Persons in Nigeria is

rooted in complex causes, phases and types of displacement; the need for return to a safe and

secured environment and reintegration assistance, but unfortunately in a fragmented

humanitarian response.

Recent studies26 have also shown that internal displacement in Nigeria is not only

caused by natural and human-made disasters, armed conflict, ethno-religious-political conflicts

but also due to extreme poverty, lack of equal access to socio-economic resources and

balanced development, high unemployment rate among able-bodied and frustrated youths as

well as development and environmental-induced displacements.27

It is noted however, that undue emphasis on disaster-induced displacement led to a

focus on addressing its root causes in order to avoid the type of humanitarian crises currently

plaguing several parts of Nigeria periodically and Nigeria’s neighbours in the sub-region. Hence,

making it key priority for the government. This approach has largely ignored non-disaster-

induced internal displacement and lack of strategic framework to address the plight of such

displaced populations28 and to provide durable solutions to all types of displacement.

The above scenario is further compounded by the absence of an endorsed national

policy framework on IDPs tabled and re-tabled before the Federal Executive Council in 2007 and

2010-11 for due consideration.29

The endorsement of the IDP policy by the Federal Government is a necessary political

will to providing durable solutions to the plight of IDPs and a practical admission of the fact that

ensuring IDP protection and assistance primarily lies with national authorities mandated to

protect and care for them.30

25 See Ladan M.T. (2011) supra note 17.26 See IDMC, Geneva (2010-11 and NCFR, Abuja (2011), supra note 3; Also see NEMA, Abuja (2011) NEMA, Abuja: Records of Internally Displaced Persons in Nigeria Oct. 2010 – Oct. 2011: Detailed position of IDPs in Nigeria (State by state) totaling 377,701 for the period under review and IDPs still in camps at 73,938; Ladan M.T., (2009-10) Introduction to ECOWAS Community Law and Practice: Integration, Migration, Human Right, Peace and Security in West Africa (2010); ABU Press, Zaria, Nigeria; Alhassan, N., NEMA, Abuja (2011) Proceedings of the multi-stakeholders, supra note 17.27 See the Proceedings and Communiqué of the 2011 Multi-stakeholders conference on Internal Displacement in Nigeria, supra note 17.28 See IDMC, Geneva, supra note 3 and Ladan (2011) supra note 17 and Ladan (2009-10_ supra note 29.29 See NCFR (2011) Draft National Policy on IDPs in Nigeria, supra note 7.30 Section 14(2) (b) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution imposes an obligation on the government, at all levels, to promote the security and welfare of the people as the primary purpose of government. This accord with Article

8

2.2 Impact of Internal Displacement on IDPs in Nigeria

During the violent conflicts or natural disaster, which forced IDPs to leave, most houses

and properties are destroyed, looted or burnt down. Most IDPs in Nigeria flee to neghbouring

communities that are safe, usually taking refuge in temporary shelters such as schools, public

buildings and places of worship among others; having been deprived of their homes and

sometimes their land and livelihoods.31 Hence, lacking access to necessities of life such as food,

water and shelter.

While some efforts are made by humanitarian and faith-based organisations and

government agencies to address some of the basic needs of IDPs, their vulnerability tend to be

increased by barriers to accessing healthcare services, education, employment, economic

activities and information for participation in decision making affecting their lives. With some

IDPs camped in school buildings, education is usually disrupted for both local communities and

displaced children.32

Further IDPs in Nigeria faced insecurity and all forms of exploitation and abuse,

including rape, having camped in congested shelters, isolated, insecure or inhospitable areas.

IDPs are also largely separated from their families especially, unaccompanied children and

teenagers, the elderly and sick, the handicapped and pregnant women, whose special needs

and privacy are not attended to, due to fragmented and uncoordinated humanitarian response

to the needs of IDPs.33

3(2) of the Kampala Convention on IDPs in Africa which requires States Parties to adopt implementing national legal and policy frameworks on the protection assistance of IDPs. Further, the Convention’s Article 4 is to the effect that State Parties are obliged to ensure that all persons are protected against arbitrary displacement as a human right. Furthermore, by virtue of the Convention’s Article 7, both parties in armed conflict are obliged to respect the provisions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law in the protection and assistance to IDPs Violators of the rights of IDPs shall be held responsible for their acts under both international and national laws.31 See IDMC, Geneva, (2010-11), NCFR (2011) supra note 3; and Alhassan N., NEMA, Abuja (2011), Ladan, M.T., (2011) and Nigerian Red Cross Society (2011) supra note 17.32 Ibid; See also ActionAid Nigeria, Abuja (2008), Policy Brief: - Dealing with the recurrent crises in Jos, Plateau State: - Policy Options for Conflict transformation and international displacement at pp. 1.6.33 See Ladan M.T., (2011) supra note 17 at p. 18.

9

IDPs in Nigeria also faced lack of access to justice, whether in relation to cases of human

rights violations such as discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, sexual violence,

and deprivation of means of livelihood.34

Even when the situation of most IDPs improves, potentially durable solutions have

remained out of the reach of specific groups with particular needs or vulnerabilities.35 These

include the elderly or sick people, widows barred from recovering the property they had lived

in, or members of minorities facing discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion or whose

livelihoods depend on a particular attachment to their areas of origin or settlement. 36 For such

groups, strategies or incentives that had encouraged others to move towards a durable solution

may not have been effective or accessible, and the tailored support they needed to rebuild

their lives was not available.37

3. OVERVIEW OF LEGAL, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR THE

PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE TO IDPs IN NIGERIA

3.1 Legal Framework

The following legal instruments guide Nigeria in her efforts to protect and assist IDPs; -

a) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended;

b) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Cap. A.9 LFN 2004;

c) The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) Act, 1999;

d) The African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa,

2009;

e) The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 1998;

f) The Gevena Conventions, 1949 and their Additional Protocols 1-2 of 1977.

34 See ActionAid Nigeria, Abuja; supra note 38 at pp. 3-4.35 Ibid 36 See Human Rights Watch, New York (2006): Report on Government Discrimination Against “Non-indigenes” in Nigeria: - They do not own this place”. Vol. 18 No. 3(A) April 2006.

See also Canadian International development Agency, Quebec, (2003): - Gender Equality and Humanitarian Assistance: - A guide to the issue, at pp. 1-14.37 See The Brookings Institution – University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement (2007): - When Displacement Ends: - A Framework for Durable Solutions.

See also Ladan. M.T., (2011), supra note 17.

10

a) Fundamental Rights of IDPs under the Constitution

IDPs as defined above remain citizens of Nigeria irrespective of how they were

displaced: - either by Natural or Human – made Disasters, armed conflict, generalized

violence or development project induced. Hence it is the primary responsibility of

government through its national authorities to ensure the promotion and protection of

the constitutionally guaranteed rights of IDPs under chapter 4, Section 33-43. These

are the Rights to life, human dignity, personal liberty, privacy and family life, fair

hearing, freedoms of religion, expression, assembly, association, movement, from non-

discrimination and to acquire and own immovable property.

Further, as the primary purpose of government, under section 14(2)(b) the State

is Constitutionally obligated to ensure the promotion of the security and welfare of all

the people (including IDPs). This can be done by ensuring the progressive realization of

the Fundamental, political, social, economic, educational, environmental and foreign

policy objectives of the state listed under sections 15-20 of chapter 2 of the

Constitution.

b) Human Rights of IDPs under the African charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Cap.

A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

In addition to the above constitutional rights, IDPs in Nigeria like any other individual or

group, are guaranteed their civil, political, social, economic, environmental and

developmental rights under Articles 2-24 of the African charter. This cluster of rights

includes rights to education, housing/shelter, health, food, employment, social security,

adequate standard of living, safe environment, cultural life and development.

c) NEMA Act, 1999

Having established NEMA under Section I, the Act goes further to list out fifteen

(15) broad functions of the Agency as follows under section 6(1): -

The Agency shall –

11

a) Formulate policy on all activities relating to disaster management in Nigeria

and co-ordinate the plans and programmes for efficient and effective

response to disasters at national level;

b) Co-ordinate and promote research activities relating to disaster management

at the national level;

c) Monitor the state of preparedness of all organizations or agencies which may

contribute to disaster management in Nigeria;

d) Collate data from relevant agencies so as to enhance forecasting, planning

and field operation of disaster management;

e) Educate and inform the public on disaster prevention and control measures;

f) Co-ordinate and facilitate the provision of necessary resources for search and

rescue and other types of disaster curtailment activities in response to

distress call;

g) Co-ordinate the activities of all voluntary organizations engaged in

emergency relief operations in any part of the Federation;

h) Receive financial and technical aid from international organizations and non-

governmental agencies for the purpose of disaster management in Nigeria;

i) Collect emergency relief supply from local, foreign sources and from

international and non-governmental agencies;

j) Distribute emergency relief materials to victims of natural or other disaster

and assist in the rehabilitation of the victims where necessary;

k) Liaise with State Emergency Management committees established under

section 8 of this Act to assess and monitor where necessary, the distribution

of relief materials to disaster victims;

l) Process relief assistance to such countries as may be determined from time

to time;

m) Liaise with the United Nations Disaster reduction Organization or such other

international bodies for the reduction of natural and other disaster;

n) Prepare the annual budget for disaster management in Nigeria; and

12

o) Perform such other functions which in the opinion of the Agency are

required for the purpose of achieving its objectives under this Act.

Section 6(2) of the Act further provides: - for the purpose of paragraphs (e), (f),

(j), (k) and (m) of subsection (1) of this section –

“natural or other disasters” include any disaster arising form any crisis, epidemic,

drought, flood, earthquake, storm, train, roads, aircraft, oil spillage or other accidents

and mass deportation or repatriation of Nigerians from any other country.

d) African Union Convention on IDPs in Africa, 2009

Having ratified by Nigeria on 17th April 2012, the convention is legally binding on

Nigeria to respect, observe and comply with its provisions in favour of IDPs

The Kampala Convention provides that states shall bear the primary duty and

responsibility for providing protection and assistance to IDPs, without discrimination of any

kind.38 Accordingly, the Convention imposes obligations on states to assess the needs and

vulnerabilities of IDPs and host communities (or to facilitate such assessments)39, and to

provide adequate humanitarian assistance to IDPs, in all phases of displacement.40 Where

appropriate, such assistance must be extended to local and host communities.41

The Kampala Convention highlights the specific needs of separated and

unaccompanied children, female heads of household, expectant mothers, mothers with

young children, the elderly and the disabled.42 Steps must be taken to protect displaced

people against sexual and gender-based violence, harmful practices, recruitment of children

as well as human trafficking and smuggling.43

“States shall provide internally displaced persons to the fullest extent practicable

and with the least possible delay, with adequate humanitarian assistance, which shall

include food, water, shelter, medical care and other health services, sanitation, education,

38 Article 5(1).39 Article 5(5)40 Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11.41 Articles 9(2)(b).42 Articles 9(2)(c).43 Articles 9(2)(d).

13

and any other necessary social services, and where appropriate, extend such assistance to

local and host communities”.44

States must allow the rapid and unimpeded passage of relief consignments,

equipment and humanitarian personnel to IDPs. They must also enable and facilitate the

role of local and international organisations and humanitarian agencies, Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs) and other actors in providing protection and assistance to IDPs.45

At the same time, the Kampala Convention requires international organisations and

humanitarian agencies to act in conformity with international law and the laws of the

country, to respect the rights of IDPs under international law and to conduct activities in

accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, as

well as international standards and codes of conduct.46

“States Parties shall provide sufficient protection and assistance to internally

displaced persons, and where available resources are inadequate to enable them to do so,

they shall cooperate in seeking the assistance of international organizations and

humanitarian agencies, civil society organizations and other relevant actors. Such

organisations may offer their services to all those in need.”47

e) Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement

Although the Guiding Principles do not constitute a binding legal instrument like

a treaty, they do reflect and are consistent with existing international law.

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (‘Guiding principles’) are the first international

standards specifically tailored to the needs of IDPs. Based on international humanitarian law,

human rights law and refugee law by analogy, the Guiding principles set forth the rights of IDPs

and explain the obligations of national authorities and non-state actors towards IDPs. They

cover all phases of internal displacement: the pre-displacement phase; during displacement;

and during return or resettlement and reintegration.

44 Kampala Convention, Article 9(2)(b)45 Articles 3(1)(j) and 5(7)46 Article 6.47 Kampala Convention, Article 5(6)

14

The Guiding Principles begin with an introduction explaining their scope and purpose. In

the introduction, internally displaced persons are described as:

Persons or groups or persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence. In particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflicts, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized border.

This description highlights the two core elements of internal displacement: (1) the

coercive or otherwise involuntary character of the movement; and (2) the fact that such

movement takes place within national borders. It is also important to note that the list of

causes of displacement is not exhaustive. It covers persons who are obliged to leave their

homes and place of residence because of conflict and large-scale human rights violations as

well natural disasters and development projects. In this context, it is important to note that the

notion of ‘displacement’ is neutral in the sense of covering both situations where persons are

compelled to leave in violation of their rights and instances of evacuations and

relocations/resettlements that are involuntary but legal.

Section I sets out general principles relating to the rights of IDPs and the responsibilities

of national authorities. Importantly, Principle 3(1) explains that national authorities have the

primary duty and responsibility to provide protection and assistance to IDPs within their

jurisdiction. In addition, Principle (1) stipulates that IDPs are entitled to enjoy in full equality the

same rights and freedoms as other persons in their country and shall not be discriminated

against because of their displacement. At the same time, the Guiding Principles acknowledge

that certain groups of IDPs – especially unaccompanied minors, expectant mothers, mothers

with young children, female heads of household, persons with disabilities and elderly persons –

may require specific attention (see principle 4(2)).

Section II address the issue of protection from displacement and articulates to right not

to be arbitrarily displaced. In practice, therefore, states are under an obligation to avoid the

displacement of populations and in particular to protect against the displacement of groups

15

with a special dependency on, or attachment to, their lands. When displacement is

unavoidable, the Guiding Principles specify minimum guarantees to be observed.

The third and most extensive section of the Guiding Principles identifies the full range of

civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all persons, including IDPs, should enjoy.

This includes, for instance, the rights according to Principle 11(2)(a) – to be protected against

acts of violence, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as

the right to be protected against the use of anti-personnel landmines (Principle 10(2)(e).

Principle 22(d) specifically identifies the right of IDPs to vote and to participate in governmental

and public affairs, whether or not they are living in camps. Principle 18 relates to the right to an

adequate standard of living, including ensuring safe access to essential food, potable water,

basic shelter and housing as well as appropriate clothing and essential medical services and

sanitation. The third section also states that special attention should be given to the prevention

of contagious and infectious diseases, (including AIDS, among IDPs (Principle 19(3)).

The fourth section deals with the issue of humanitarian assistance and specifies that

when governmental authorities are unable or unwilling to provide assistance to the displaced,

international organizations have the right to offer their services, and that consent for them to

do so shall not be arbitrarily withheld.

The final section of the Guiding Principles emphasizes the importance of providing IDPs

with long-term options, namely voluntary return in safety and dignity or resettlement in

another part of the country. It also emphasizes the importance of ensuring durable solutions,

including the need to provide IDPs with reintegration assistance, whether they return or

resettle, and to ensure they have equal access to public services. In addition, this section

explains the duty of national authorities to assist IDPs recover the property and possessions

they lost upon displacement or, when this is not possible, to assist them in obtaining

compensation or another form of just reparation.

Throughout the Guiding Principles, emphasis is placed on the protection, assistance and

reintegration needs of women and children. These two groups typically comprise the

overwhelming majority of displaced populations. They are currently estimated as comprising

70-80% of the IDP population worldwide. The Guiding Principles call for the participation of

16

women in the planning and distribution of relief supplies. They require special attention to be

paid to the health needs of women, including access to female health care providers and

services, and special efforts be made to ensure the full and equal participation of women and

girls in educational programmes. They also prohibit sexual violence, stress the need for family

reunification, and highlight the right of women to equal access to personal identity and other

documentation and to have such documentation issued in their own names. Principle 23

recognizes the right to education and states that special efforts must be made to ensure that

women and girls enjoy equal and full participation in educational programs. In relation to

children, Principle 13 (2) adds that under no circumstances are children to be recruited or to be

required or permitted to take part in hostilities.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Assembly requested the

former Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, Francis M.

Deng, to develop a normative framework on internal displacement. In 1998, he presented the

Guiding Principles to the United Nations. Although not a binding document like a treaty, they

have gained considerable international standing and authority. Both the Commission on Human

Rights and the General Assembly, in resolutions adopted by consensus, have recognized the

Guiding Principles as ‘an important tool’ and ‘standard’ for addressing situations of internal

displacement, encouraged their wide dissemination and welcomed their increasing use by

states, UN agencies and regional and non-governmental organizations.48

The UN Secretary-General has also called on the Security Council to encourage states to

observes the Guiding Principles in situations of mass displacement, and in his 2005 report on

UN reform, he urged member states to accept the Guiding Principles as ‘the basic international

norm for protection’ of internally displaced persons.49 In addition, Heads of state and

governments who assembled at the World Summit in New York in September 2005 recognized

the Guiding Principles as an ‘important international framework for the protection of internally

displaced persons’ (Art. 132). All of the main international humanitarian, human rights and

development organizations and umbrella groups have endorsed the Guiding Principles and

48 See UN, Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/55; Geneva Assembly Resolution 2004/58; and Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/46.49 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, In Larger Freedom: - Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, UN doc. a/59/2005 (2005), para. 210.

17

taken steps to disseminate and apply them in the field. Around the world, regional

organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of

Europe, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American

States, have expressed support for the Principles and use them as a monitoring tool, as a

benchmark for measuring conditions on the ground and as a framework for IDPs programs and

activities. Regional and sub-regional responses in Africa have expressed support for the

Principles as well.50

Importantly, the Guiding Principles are being used at the national level in countries

affected by internal displacement. Particularly note worthy is the development of national laws

and policies based on the Principles. In Africa, Angola led the way as the first country in the

world to incorporate the Guiding Principles into domestic legislation, with the Norms for the

Resettlement of Displaced Populations. Adopted in January 2001 in anticipation of the end of

the conflict in the country and the possibility of durable solutions for the displaced, the Norms

set forth minimum standards for the protection and assistance of IDPs during their

resettlement. For instance, they affirm that all returns must be voluntary and occur in

conditions of safety. They specify that returning IDPs are to have access to land and should

receive seeds and tools. Further, the Norms provided that rule of law and public infrastructure

such as schools must be in place in areas of return. In West Africa, Nigeria has completed the

process of developing a policy on internal displacement, a recent revised draft of which reveals

the comprehensive response that Nigeria takes to displacement, addressing all its causes

including conflict, natural disasters and development projects. In Liberia, the President

announced the endorsement of the Guiding Principles which have been referenced in domestic

law. Several other governments, including Burundi, Colombia, Georgia and Uganda, have also

expressly referenced the Guiding Principles in their national laws and policies.51

National human rights institutions, for instance in Uganda and in countries in South Asia

and the Americans, are also making use of the Guiding Principles to promote and protect the

50 See Resolution on the mandate of the Special Repporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and IDPs in Africa, adopted at the 36th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human Peoples’ Rights in Dakar, Senegal, on 7 th

December 2004.51 See Kalin W., opening Speech at the 1st Regional Conference on IDPs in West Africa, held at the ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja, 26-28 April 2006, Organized by Federal Government of Nigeria, ECOWAS, UNHCR and Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., USA, p. 1.

18

rights of the internally displaced. Even some non-state actors have begun to refer to the

Guiding Principles as a guide for protecting and assisting the internally displaced in their zones

of influence. Moreover, around the world, civil society groups have been instrumental in

disseminating the Guiding Principles and using them as a basis for advocating for the rights of

the internally displaced. IDPs themselves are using the Guiding Principles as an empowerment

tool.52

The normative framework found in the Guiding Principles not only sets out the norms to

be observed but also provides a framework for dialogue on IDP issues, thereby lending support

to the development of effective strategies for preventing and effectively responding to internal

displacement. In a number of countries, including in West Africa, training workshops bringing

together representatives of national and local government, civil society, IDP communities and

international agencies have raised awareness and understanding of the Guiding Principles and

stimulated the development of national strategies promoting their application.53

As a sign of their broad use, the Guiding Principles have been translated from English

into over 40 languages, including French, Portuguese, Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba.54

f) International Humanitarian Law (the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols)

Having ratified the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on 20/6/1961 and the Additional

Protocols 1-2 of 1977 on 10/10/1988, Nigeria further domesticated the Geneva

Conventions as an Act, Cap. G.3, Vol. 7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

IHL expressly prohibits the displacement of civilians. In addition, the rules of IHL

intended to spare civilians from the effects of hostilities play an important role in preventing

displacement, as it is often violations of these rules that cause civilians to flee their homes.55

Of particular relevance are: the prohibition on attacking civilians or civilian property

and on indiscriminate attacks; the prohibition on starving civilians as a method of warfare

and on destroying objects indispensable to their survival; the prohibition on reprisals

52 Forced Migration Review, Supplement (October 2005): - Refugee studies Centre, University of Oxford, UK., at pp. 17-18.53 Ibid54 See supra note 64.55 See Articles 48, 49, 51 and 52 of the Additional Protocol I of 1977; and articles 13, 14, 17 & 18 of Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

19

against civilians and civilian property; the prohibition on using civilians as “human shields”;

the prohibition on collective punishment, which, in practice, often consists in destroying

homes and thus leads to displacement; the obligation for all States and all parties to a

conflict to allow the unhindered passage of relief supplies and the provision of assistance

necessary for the survival of civilians.56

In situations of armed conflict to which the Geneva conventions of 1949 and their

additional Protocols of 1977 apply, refugees57 and stateless persons are recognized as

requiring special protection and treatment. This issue is specifically dealt with in Article 44

of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Article 73 of additional protocol I of 1977. In

situations of International armed conflict refugees and stateless persons are protected

persons in all circumstances and without any adverse distinction within the meaning of

parts I and III of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In conflicts not of an international charter,

Article 3 common to the four Geneva conventions of 1949 states that persons taking no

active apart in the hostilities must be treated humanely in all circumstances, and without

any adverse distinction, by the parties to the conflict. Additional Protocol II of 1977 offers

specific measures of protection for the civilian population, in which refugees can be

included.

As for the protection of internally displaced persons, the first observation to be

made is that IDPs not taking active part in hostilities must be considered as civilians and are

entitled to all the levels of protection accorded to civilians in situations of armed conflict 58

of particular relevance to IDPs is Article 26 of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which

stipulates that: -

“Each party to the conflict shall facilitate enquiries made by members of families dispersed owing to the war, with the object of renewing contact with one another and of meeting, if possible. It shall encourage, in particular, the work of Organizations engaged on this task provided they are acceptable to it and conform to its security regulations”.

56 Ibid. see also Rules 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 97 of Customary International Humanitarian Law57 Ladan M.T.,(2001) Introduction to International Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws, Ahmadu Bello University Press, Zaria, Nigeria; pp. 258-259; See also Ladan M.T., (2008) Materials and Cases Public International Law. A.B.U. Press, Zaria, Nigeria, Chapter 33 at p. 906.58 Ibid at pp. 259.

20

In this connection, Article 33 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 addresses the issue

of “missing persons” and the obligation for parties to conflict to search for them and

facilitate such searches. Article 74 of the same instrument addressed the issue of

reuniting dispersed families.

The fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, (applicable in situations of international

armed conflict) prohibits individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of

protected persons from occupied territory to the occupying power or to that of any

other country, occupied or not, regardless of their motive. It furthermore states, in the

same article, that the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own

civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article 85(4) (a) of additional Protocol I

of 1977 stipulates that the previously mentioned acts, when committed willfully and in

violation of the Conventions or the Protocol, shall be regarded as grave breaches.

In situations of armed conflict not of an international character, protection of the

civilian population is offered by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of

1949 and by Additional Protocol I of 1977, (applicable in situations of high-intensity non-

international armed conflict). Rules for the general protection of the civilian population

against the dangers arising from military operations are set out in Articles 13 to 16

Protocol II. Article 17 prohibits the forced movement of civilians unless the security of

the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Paragraph 2 of this

article states that: - “civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for

reasons connected with the conflict”.

As recent history shows, states very often have difficulty in admitting that there

is an armed conflict on their territory and therefore operations conducted by the

government are merely police operations aimed at restoring public order. Although it is

true that there is no clear definition of non-international armed conflict, states must

nevertheless be encouraged to apply and respect principles of humanitarian law in

armed conflict situations. This is particularly relevant where the plight of IDPs is

concerned.59 Their right to return to the place of their habitual residence is often not 59 Ibid at p. 260.

21

respected. Such as return must take place under acceptable conditions of security and

with guarantees of fundamental respect for their human dignity. Quite often IDPs have

lost all identification documents. The provision of such papers is crucial if IDPs are truly

to enjoy their right to legal personality through, for instance, registration of births,

deaths and marriages.

It has been held that the special and new position of IDPs call for additional

standard setting at the UN level, for instance by creating a convention on IDPs.

However, consideration must also be given to the risk that such a convention may

undermine the legal standards (protecting the rights and position of IDPs) already in

force.

It is in any case evident with regard to the situation of IDPs in general that there

is no lack of legal standards to protect their position and rights, but rather a lack of

assiduity in applying the legally binding norms already in existence.

i. Protection of Displaced Persons under IHL in Non-International Armed Conflict

Once an armed conflict exists in a given country, humanitarian law becomes

applicable to those internally displaced persons who live within that situation. Human

rights law remains applicable as well, although its rights and guarantees are increasingly

subject to restrictions and, in extreme cases, even derogation, except for the core of

non-derogable rights. Nevertheless, human rights law and humanitarian law converge to

a large extent in purely internal armed conflict situations and they reinforce each other.

Human rights law generally restrains the abusive practices of only one party to

the conflict, namely the Government and its agents. Since only States are proper parties

to human rights treaties, it is usually the Governments of States that are internationally

responsible for human rights violations under those treaties. Comparable abuses

committed by private actors, such as rebels or other dissident groups, are not the

subject matter of admissible complaints before monitoring bodies established under

existing human rights conventions unless private acts are instigated, encouraged or at

least acquiesced in by Government concerned; otherwise, they are typically labelled as

22

infractions of a country’s domestic laws. However, the notion that non-governmental

actors should be internationally responsible for human rights abuses has gained ground

in recent years. To the extent that certain internationally recognized crimes are

coextensive with proscriptions under human rights treaties or fall under the jurisdiction

of international tribunals, private actors may incur individual penal responsibility for the

commission of such crimes, including, inter alia, genocide or torture.

Together with article I common to the four Geneva Conventions, mandating

contracting parties to respect and to ensure for the Conventions in all circumstances,

the only other provision in these instruments that directly governs all internal armed

conflicts is article 3, also common to the four Conventions (hereinafter, common article

3). Common article 3 binds both parties to the conflict, i.e. Government and dissident

forces. It does not apply to mere acts of banditry or unorganized and short-lived

rebellions but typically to armed strife between governmental armed forces and

organized, armed dissidents generally occurring within the territory of a particular State.

It also applies to cases in which two or more armed factions within a country confront

one another without the involvement of governmental forces, for example, when the

established Government has dissolved or is too weak to intervene. The application of

common article 3 is automatic as soon as a situation of armed conflict for the protection

of persons who do not, or who no longer, take an active part in the hostilities.

The obligation to apply common article 3 is absolute for every party to the

conflict and independent of the obligation of the other party. Accordingly, individual

civilians, including those forcibly or voluntarily displaced by virtue of the hostilities, are

entitled to the absolute guarantees of common article 3 when they are captured by or

subjected to the power of either government or dissident forces. In addition, common

article 3, by inference, and customary law,60 prohibits displaced persons and other

civilians living in combat zones or areas controlled by the enemy from being directly

attacked. Deaths of civilians resulting from such illicit attacks are tantamount to

homicide and cannot be considered legitimately to be wartime casualties.

60 See Rules 129(b), 131-138 of Customary International Humanitarian Law

23

Protocol II, according to its article 1 (1), applies to non-international armed

conflicts “which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its

armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under

responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory s to enable them

to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this

Protocol.” Because of these objective requirements, the Protocol essentially applies to

situations of civil war. Protocol II does not alter Common article 3, but rather the two

apply collectively and in conjunction with one another.

ii. Protection of Displaced Persons under IHL in Inter-state Armed Conflict

Inter-state, i.e. international armed conflict represents another situation creating

internal displacement that receives distinct treatment under international law. Here, human

rights law remains applicable during inter-State conflict, and it becomes especially

important to protect internally displaced persons against their own government where

humanitarian law may not afford protection. However, because of the nature of an inter-

State conflict, human rights guarantees may become subject to restrictions or even

derogations. Non-derogable rights must be respected under all circumstances.

In such situations, humanitarian law, notably the Geneva Conventions of 12 August

1949 and Protocol I as well as the customary laws of war, become fully operative for States

parties in inter-State hostilities which, according to article 2 common to the four Geneva

Conventions, involve a declared war, or, in its absence, any conflict between two or more

States leading to the intervention of armed forces, including occupation. The armed forces

of States engaged in international wars must implement, enforce and comply with all the

highly developed rules and protections contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions,

Additional Protocol I (where applicable) and the customary laws of armed conflict.

Most norms concerning the protection of civilians in international armed conflicts

were designed for non-nationals of the State that effectively holds the power in the

respective territory. In this regard, article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, provides in

relevant part:

24

“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict of occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.“Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hand they are.Most provisions of the Geneva Conventions, therefore, are not applicable to

persons displaced to an area controlled by their own Government. Among the norms

which only protect against the authorities of a foreign State (normally an Occupying

Power) are many of those provisions which address the needs of displaced persons in

the most comprehensive way: thus, Part III, Section III of the Fourth Geneva Convention

is limited to persons under foreign occupation, including the particularly important and

clear obligation of the Occupying Power to grant passage to humanitarian operations

(art. 59).

Some provisions contained in Part II of the Fourth Geneva Convention and part

IV of Protocol I have, however, broader applicability. Part II of the fourth Geneva

Convention “cover(s) the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict” (art 13),

and thus also internally displaced persons in the territory controlled by their own

government. It contains provisions for hospital and safety zones and localities (art. 14),

neutralized zones (art. 15), for the protection of the wounded, sick, infirm and expectant

mothers including provisions concerning hospitals and transports (art. 16, 18-22) and

the “endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or

encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity

cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical

equipment on their way to such areas” (art. 17), concerning child welfare (art. 24), the

exchange of family news (art. 25) and inquiries made by members of dispersed families

(art. 26).

Part IV of Protocol I defines a different scope of application than the Fourth

Geneva Convention. Concerning the territorial aspect, “[t]he provisions of this Protocol

25

with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted” (art. 49,

para 2). With respect to the personal scope of application, Protocol I refers to civilians in

general and does not distinguish between nationalities but concentrates on the

inoffensive character of the persons to be spared.

Therefore, while not specifically designed for this purpose, almost the whole of

Part IV of Protocol I is applicable to internally displaced persons in international

conflicts. In this context, the following provisions are particularly important: the

prohibition of specific and indiscriminate attacks against civilians (art. 51), the

prohibition of starvation of civilians (art. 54. para. 1), the protection of non-defended

localities (art. 59) and demilitarized zones (art. 60), the provision of relief to the civilian

population (arts. 69-71), the reunion of dispersed families (art. 74), the general

fundamental guarantees applicable to everyone (art. 75) and the protection of women

(art. 76) and children (arts. 77-78). It is noteworthy, however, that only a limited

number of States have ratified Protocol I which means that many internally displaced

persons cannot benefit from these guarantees.

3.2 Policy Framework on IDPs61

The initial draft National Policy on IDPs in Nigeria (2003-2009) was heavily influenced by

the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. This draft was reviewed twice between

2009 – 2011 in order to reflect the current realities in Nigeria and the new AU Convention on

IDPs in Africa, adopted in 2009, at Kampala Uganda. This was further reviewed between May

30th and July 30, 2012 in order to reflect the implementation strategies for the ratified

Convention by Nigeria on 17th April 2012, which finally came into force on December 6, 2012.

The 56 page Revised Draft National Policy on IDPs in Nigeria is yet to be adopted by the

Federal Government. It however contains six broad chapters as follows: -

Chapter one deals with the introduction by providing for the definition of key terms,

contextual background and situation analysis on IDPs in Nigeria.

61 See Federal Republic of Nigeria, Abuja (2012 – July): - Revised Draft National Policy on IDPs in Nigeria.

26

Chapter two on policy thrust, covers the policy framework, scope, justification, goals,

objectives, guiding principles and declaration of vision and mission statements.

Chapter three outlines the rights and duties of IDPs consistent with Nigeria’s

Constitutional and treaty obligations.

Chapter four deals with the responsibilities of government at all levels to prevent

internal displacement, protect and assist IDPs in Nigeria; responsibilities of host communities

and armed groups.

Chapter five covers matters relating to the broad implementation strategies,

institutional mechanism for coordination and collaboration and necessary legal framework to

back up the policy.

Finally, chapter six provides for the funding, monitoring, evaluation and policy review.

3.3 Institutional Framework

NEMA, having been established by Section 1 of the NEMA Act,62 the Act further

established a Governing Council under the Chairmanship of the Vice-President, Federal

Republic of Nigeria, for the management of the Agency.

NEMA’s Governing Council consists of the following under section 2(2): -

The Council shall consist of –

a) the Vice-President, federal Republic of Nigeria who shall be the Chairman;

b) the Secretary to the Government of the Federation;

c) one representative each of the following Federal Ministries who shall not be below

the rank of a Director, that is -

i. Aviation,

ii. Foreign Affairs,

iii. Health,

iv. Internal Affairs,

v. Transport,

vi. Water Resources,

vii. Works and Housing;62 Cap. N.34, Vol.10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

27

d) one representative each of –

i. the Armed Forces,

ii. the Nigeria Police force,

iii. the Nigeria Red Cross Society,

iv. such voluntary organisations as may be determined from time to time; and

e) the Director-General of the Agency

As earlier noted, section 6(1) listed fifteen (15) broad functions of the Agency and

Section 7 empowers the Council to, among other things manage and superintend the affairs of

the Agency; and do such other things which in the opinion of the Agency are necessary to

ensure the efficient performance of the functions of the Agency.

IDP Management and Protection in Nigeria

• IDP management is part and parcel of disaster management. All facets of disaster

management cycle- Prevention, Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery are

applicable to IDPs and they constitutes component of IDP management since IDPs are

product of natural and human made disasters. This has been buttressed by the Kampala

convention.

• Disaster prevention and mitigation are essential to prevent displacement of people and

ensure that when such displacement happens, they come with minimal impact.

• Preparedness is necessary to ensure that response to emergencies are efficient and

effective which could reduce the number of fatalities, bring immediate succour to those

affected and restore normalcy by way of rehabilitation and reconstruction.

• The guiding principle of Internal Displacement places the responsibility of assisting and

protecting IDPs on the National government.

• NEMA as the coordinating Agency is the vehicle through which the Federal Government

coordinate and integrate IDP management in all its facets.

28

• All procedures, system and guidelines for disaster prevention and mitigation mentioned

above applies to IDPs. When disasters are prevented or mitigated we have limited IDPs

to contend with and one will be able to manage them efficiently and effectively.

• The existing procedures, system and guideline for assistance and protection of IDPs in

Nigeria are: -

• National Disaster Response Plan approved by the Federal Executive Council in

2002

• Search and Rescue and Epidemic Evacuation Plan signed by 44 Chief Executives

• National Disaster Management Framework (NDMF)

• National Contingency Plan.

• IDP assistance and protection depend on effective and efficient actors in 3 areas: cluster

approach which depend on adequate capacity and predictable leadership in all sectors,

coordination which hinges on effective leadership and coordination in humanitarian

response and financing which rest on adequate timely and flexible financing.

• The National Disaster Management framework and the National Contingency Plan have

carefully addressed all these requirements.

• Section 7.10 of NDMF relates to assistance and protection of IDPs.63

• The NDMFevolved through 6 consultative round tables in the Six Geopolitical Zone and a

National Roundtable in Abuja.

• Each roundtable of the NDMF drew participation from, relevant Federal and States

MDAs, Local Governments, Media, Local and International NGOs, Private Sectors and

the Academia. A total of 464 bodies participated in the making of the NDMF.

National Contingency Plan (NCP)

• NCP adopts the multi-risk approach and identified flood, crises, epidemic, drought,

collapse of artificial and natural impoundments as probable disasters that can cause

high level impact and displacement of persons.

• A population of 500,000 was used as the benchmark for planning assumptions.

• The geographical area covered the whole country based on identified hazards.63 Page 53 of NDMF

29

• Meteorological predictions, monitoring of dams, as well as, socio and ethno-religious

activities by relevant agencies were used as the basis for Early Warnings and triggers for

the probability of the occurrence of the identified disasters.

• The Sectoral Response took into cognizance Preparedness, Minimum Response and

Comprehensive response within the following Clusters: Water and Sanitation (WASH);

Food and Non Food Items (NFIs); Emergency Shelter; Telecommunication and Logistics;

Basic Education; Security and Protection; Camp Management; Health, Reproductive

Health and HIV AIDS.

• The Contingency Supply requirements (i.e. personnel, supplies and equipments) and

budget was also developed to ensure proper resource mobilization and functioning of

the various sectors during the agreed period of minimum response. The document also

made adequate arrangement for trainings, simulations and review dates

• The Contingency Plan addresses the fundamental requirements of cluster approach,

coordination and financing in the following way:

Cluster Approach

S/N Cluster Lead Ministries/Agencies Lead UN Agency

1 Camp Coordination and Camp Management

NEMA/SEMA UNHCR

2 Food and Nutrition FMoAgric/SMoAgric/SEMA WFP/FAO

3 Health and Sexual Reproductive Health/HIV AIDS

FMoH/SMoH/NACA/SACA/LACA WHO/UNFPA/ UNAIDS

4 Protection NHRC/MWASD UNICEF/UNHCR

Security Law Enforcement Agencies UNDSS

5 Basic Education FMoEdu/SMoEdu/SUBEC UNICEF and SC

30

6 Water and Sanitation FMoWR/SMoWR/RUWASA UNICEF

7 Emergency Shelter and NFI

NEMA/SEMA IFRC and IOM

8 Logistics and Telecommunication

NEMA/SEMA/FMoIC/SMoIC/NCC/ State Mass Transit

WFP/UNDP

Coordination

NCP adopted the coordination mechanism contained in the NDMF. Also, the information

and communication mechanism of the incident command system was adopted to ensure that

the implementation of the document is in line with global best practices.

Funding

Funding of the plan will be based on the source of Disaster Management funding in

Nigeria and other arrangements as contained in the Establishment Act of NEMA.

The National Contingency Plan was developed by NEMA in collaboration with UNICEF.64

IDP PROTECTION

The NCP addresses the issues of protection as follows:

Protection issues especially in emergencies leading to displacement can have significant

impact on the affected population when inadequately managed. It is important to acknowledge

the different vulnerabilities, needs and capacities of affected groups. Factors such as gender,

age, disability and HIV/AIDS status, increase vulnerabilities and affect the ability of people to

cope in disaster situations. In particular, women, children, aged people and PLWH/A may suffer

specific disadvantages in coping with a disaster and may face cultural and social barriers in

accessing services and other support to which they are entitled. Frequently, ethno-religious or

political affiliation and displacement predispose certain people to risk. Failure to recognize the

64 Has participation of SEMAs, NOA, IOM, FMoE, FMoWR, FMoH, FRSC, Catholic Relief Services, DHO, NAPTIP, OXFAM GB, UN-HABITAT, UN Women, UNICEF, Save the Children, NSCDC, Centre for Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, NRS, NAN, FRCN, National Programme for Agric and Food Security, NIMET, NACA, IFRCR, United Nations office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Lin Energy and Technical Services and NPF on the 8 th-9th March, 2011 at Summi Villas Hotel in Abuja. A total of 61 participants drew up the draft in Abuja and 59 participants cleaned it up in Hamdala Hotel, Kaduna on 23rd-25th March, 2011.

31

differing needs of vulnerable groups and the challenges they face in gaining equal access to

appropriate services and support can result to further marginalization or denial.

Sectoral Objective

• To ensure special protective measures and care are provided for most vulnerable

population in emergencies.

• To ensure that issues of equity, diversity, and other non-discriminatory principles are

observed during provision of humanitarian services to displaced persons.

Operational Objectives

• To ensure the protection of vulnerable groups especially women, children and physically

challenged from abuse, exploitation, neglect, harm, exploitation, abduction, recruitment

into fighting forces, sexual violence, lack of opportunity to participate in decision

making,.

• To ensure proper documentation and effective reporting system for proper investigation

and intervention.

• To ensure the provision of social welfare services for the affected population protection

table

EMERGING CHALLENGES AND THE WAY FORWARD

Emerging Challenges

• The increase in internal conflicts produced growing numbers of internally displaced

persons.

• Inadequate funding of Disaster Management activities at Ministries, Departments and

Agencies (MDAs)

• Non establishment of SEMAs in 10 States and FCT

• Lack of capacity at the State and Local Government levels.

THE WAY FORWARD

32

• Adoption of the National Disaster Management Framework by National Economic

Council (NEC) and the execution of the follow up actions.

• Commencement of coordination meetings for each of the sectors in line with NCP to

enable clusters develop common understanding of common challenges, capacities and

organizational requirements.

• Implementation of other preparedness actions stated within each sector in line with the

NCP, such as coordinating the pre-positioning of emergency supplies, Training and

Simulation exercises, linkages with other sectors, establishing Channels of

Communication.

CONCLUSION

IDP assistance and Protection has come a long way in Nigeria. What the nation requires

at this material moment is to nurture, improve and sustain it. This is not the time for

duplication of efforts and waste of resources as it will only lead to inefficiency and confusion

instead of effective coordination and collaboration among humanitarian agencies and national

authorities.

Adoption of the revised draft national policy on IDPs by the Federal Government is long

overdue and imperative now due to the treaty obligations of Nigeria to implement the African

Union (Kampala) Convention on the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa. This requires

review of all existing legal, policy and institutional frameworks in order to ensure their

conformity with the provisions of the Kampala Convention and other principles of international

human rights and humanitarian laws.

33

SELECTED REFERENCES

1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

2) NEMA Act, 1999.

3) Revised Draft National Policy on IDPs, 2012.

4) AU (Kampala) Convention on IDPs in Africa, 2009.

5) Geneva Conventions, 1949 and Additional Protocols 1-2, 1977.

6) Ladan, M.T., ‘Legal and Policy Imperatives for the Prevention, Protection, Assistance and

Durable Solution to the Plight of IDPs in Nigeria, published in African Yearbook on

International Humanitarian Law (2011) Juta and Co. South Africa, at pp. 79-106.

7) UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 1998.

8) Alhassan, N., (2011): - Response to IDP Protection in Nigeria: - Emerging issues, challenges

and Prospects. Being a paper presented at the national conference on IDPs in Nigeria.

Organized by CISLAC, Abuja. 21-22 November, 2011 at Bolton White Hotels, Abuja.

34