Ebola and R2P; Africa and the International Community: 5 Definite Lessons from the Ebola Crisis

After completing a scintillating [cough, cough] thesis on the responsibility to protect [R2P] and its operation in West Africa, I shamelessly seize any opportunity to crowbar my knowledge in this area into current affairs. The Ebola epidemic provided such a great opportunity to do this that I [not so reluctantly] refused to resist the temptation. My thesis focused on the preventive arm of (R2P) and I continue to examine any responsibility which the international community may have in preventing human suffering in fragile states.

In April 2014, the first cases of Ebola were brought to international attention. The outbreak started in Guinea, but quickly spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone with isolated cases in neighbouring Senegal and a transported outbreak in Nigeria. Without a hashtag to cling to or an ice bucket challenge to surmount, the world largely ignored the outbreak. It was not till selfless American and British aid workers, who contacted the deadly virus, were flown to their respective homelands for treatment, that the mass hysteria of an imminent biological apocalypse caused several governments around the world (outside West Africa) to begin to consider what they may do to avoid the virus killing their own citizens. Nevertheless, by October 2014 infections had occurred in the US and Spain.

As of November 2015, 19 months since the first confirmed case on 23 March 2014, there have been 11,314 recorded deaths in six countries; Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, the US and Mali. The total number of reported cases is more than 28,607 and counting. A report published in the Lancet in 2015, blames the epidemic spread of the disease on the slow international response.[i]

This brings us back to R2P and the international community. The purpose of R2P was to enable the international community to act to prevent human suffering in fragile states.[ii] The spread of Ebola was largely due to lack of suitable medical facilities and adequate numbers of medical personnel in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea [the first two are recovering from internal conflict, Guinea has suffered years of internal strife.] This people-centred ideal has however been lost in the haze of world events and the euphoria of UN at the adoption of the 2005 UN Outcome Document which significantly dilutes and misunderstands R2P.[iii] As a result R2P has been reduced to giving states an excuse for military intervention in other states. I believe that the spirit of R2P can still be salvaged. Nevertheless, there are various lessons which I would like to point out from the foregoing, moving forward.

  1. The international community as a unitary actor is pure fiction. While the phrase ‘international community’ is used to imply a common point of view, that commonality is almost always overshadowed by personal and political self-interest. The UN and WHO, both seen as evidence of the existence of an international community, barely managed to get a handle on the crisis. The crisis could have been contained with adequate readiness by a cohesive international community in April 2014, but the lack of such a community has resulted in unnecessary loss of life and increasing expenditure. Lesson one: Relying on the international community is like sitting on a chair made of tissue paper, it will let you down.
  2. R2P is severely handicapped by a non-existent international community. The core of the responsibility to protect (R2P) is ‘[w]here a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect’.[iv] R2P embraces 3 responsibilities; a responsibility to prevent, a responsibility to react, and a responsibility to rebuild. The vision of the architects of R2P clearly covers a situation such as the current Ebola outbreak, where populations in West Africa are suffering serious harm, and the states concerned are unable to prevent it. The international responsibility to protect cannot be fulfilled if there is no international community to bear such a responsibility. This is more so as regards the first part of the continuum, i.e. the responsibility to prevent. Lesson two – R2P without a functional international community is like a toothbrush with no bristles, completely redundant.
  3. If the international community is to be built, it should start from a sense of human oneness. Our understanding of community is based on the fictional presumption of shared values. These shared values rarely result in shared action unless, shared interests are at stake. The enforcement and implementation of international human rights law will be merely academic until both interests and values coincide. The basic fact of shared humanity should suffice to ignite human compassion, only when this is taken as read, will we have an international community. The existence of an international community does not require more resources, the world has enough, though unevenly distributed. The international community requires more humanity, not money or security, compassion and human kindness, not rhetoric or bombast… the world needs consistent acts of benevolence. Lesson three – calling the international community a community without any sense of communion is like calling a dying cactus a rose bush, placing it in your parlour and hoping its non-existent fragrance will adorn the premises.
  4. Africa must look to herself. Now more than ever, Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, must realise that self-sufficiency is required. Aid has solved no problems, interventions have probably done more harm than good, and the recommendation of constant elections, have become a smoke-screen for undemocratic democracies. Both Liberia and Sierra Leone were unable to handle Ebola due to the lack of manpower and infrastructure that have resulted from sustained yet preventable conflict (I suggest you read my thesis, remember, its scintillating). In contrast ever-tense Nigeria, and sporadic conflict-hit Senegal contained Ebola without any external help. Therein lies a truth – if Ebola can be contained in these states, viable economies can be built and the move made from fragile to solid. The international community should eschew aid and promote fair international business practices. Africa should look to herself, adopt its own home-grown solutions, and do good to all people. Lesson 4 – a person who lives at the bottom of a hill, should be the first to build a floodwall during the flood… Nevertheless, the person at the top of the hill should note, that there is no way of escape.
  5. My final truth – we are one world, one human race. ‘The world has become like a drum – if hit on one end, the whole thing will vibrate.’  At no point in history is this truth more glaring. We see this through the prisms of economic downturns, the fears of climate change, the pressures of petrol prices, the push and pull of migration, the visual horrors of terrorism, and the insecurity of the internet – international law losing its validity at a time when its role should be predominant. Lesson 5 – Different colours, nationalities, genders, dreams, political leanings, social standings, and beliefs – but we breathe in the same air, walk on the same planet, lie under the same stars … and Ebola can kill us all.

[i] Moon, Suerie, et al. “Will Ebola change the game? Ten essential reforms before the next pandemic. The report of the Harvard-LSHTM Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola.” The Lancet (2015).

[ii] Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,. “The Responsibility to Protect.” (2001): 155-75.

[iii] World Summit Outcome Document 2005. A/RES/60/1.

[iv] Report of the ICISS xi, emphasis mine.

Who are we, Nigerians? What is Nigeria?

The everlasting conundrum of the people called Nigerians has raised up such phrases like “geographical expression”, “geographical entity”, “artificial creation”, “colonial creation.” Are we a state in the true meaning of the word state? Hobbes theorised that a state is created to bring and end to the anarchy or individualised existence and Locke proposed that the creation of state was for the protection of life and property. We all know that this does not apply to Naija.

Naija was created out of the consolidation of British ‘real estate’ adjacent to the river Niger. It was named by the lightskirt, and later wife of the ‘estate-manager’ of the real estate. It was never administered as a state but as a well-spring of resources to a greedy eyed empire. It only became a state at the end of colonialism because the USwas throwing its weight around (what’s new?) and insisted on states being created as opposed to a return to status quo ante of the real estate.
54 years after ‘independence’ (supposedly we are independent) we still have no conception of who we are. This has been further obscured by irresponsible leadership, selfish international influence and apathetic ‘citizenship’. (can we call ourselves citizens if we do not belong to a state stricto sensu?) In 1966, the talented Mr. Peter Enahoro wrote a book titled “How to be a Nigerian” which while being comical and insightful managed to capture the essence of the southern-most part of Nigeriaalone. Our 3 main languages are a great insult to over 500 languages spoken by ethnic Nigerians, which are slowly dying out in favour of those 3. The supposed main tribes of Nigeriaare minor compared to the 400 others which nobody cares to know about. How can we be Nigeria when we do not know what Nigeriais?

We have had a state imposed on us, leaders imposed on us, languages imposed on us, a way of life imposed on us. At over 50 years we are reminiscent of a retarded vegetable, who will never answer to his name, we are abandoned, despised a paraplegic parasite, constantly soiling himself. A deranged billy-goat meekly being led to the slaughter while frantically bleating out the name of its ancestors. Now more than ever before, we need to take this moment in time, and the first time in history decide our future; throw of our chains; refuse to be led by morons. Now more than ever before, we have to find Nigeriaand then find our way home, wherever home may be. For our children… for their future…

 

Personal Legal explanation of Oscar Pistorius Verdict

Here is my considered legal opinion to the reaction on the verdict in the Oscar Pistorious case. (Which we will all have forgotten about next week). I hope anyone reading will approach with an open mind…
It is for the prosecution to prove that OP is guilty and not for OP to prove that he is innocent, furthermore, we do not have all the evidence before us, but a summary distilled for us by a biased media.
So first we have the physical act of killing which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) this was not disputed by the defence. Second we have causation. i.e. did the act of the defendant OP cause the death of the Reeva? That was not also in dispute.
To sustain a conviction you have to prove BRD that the above happened while the defendant had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to R or another. The intention is not diluted by the intention to kill or cause GBH being directed to another. This is where I think the prosecution did not exercise diligent prosecution by trying to prove and ‘either or’ case. They tried to prove that OP had intention to either kill R in a fit of rage OR kill an intruder with intent.
What this means for the standard of proof is that each alternative weakens the proof of the other alternative.
Let me illustrate. Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP killed R with the requisite intent? No, because they suggest that he may have been aiming to kill an intruder. So intent is not proved BRD.
Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP intended to kill an intruder with the requisite intent? No, because they maintain that he may have had intent to kill R.
By maintaining both alternatives could have happened the prosecution introduced reasonable doubt that either alternative happened. I believe they intended to prove the OP killed R with intent, but while they were still sub judice (course of trial) they realised their evidence will not suffice for proof BRD. Had they evaluated their evidence properly BEFORE trial they should have gone with the second alternative.
Mistaken identity does not dilute intent. Thus if A intended to kill B but killed C, subject to the actus reus being proved, A will still be guilty of murder.
The difficulty in proving the mental element or mens rea of murder is why there is a whole raft of other convictions available for unlawful killing which give the judges the discretion to sentence relative to the seriousness of the crime, taking into account the purposes of the legal system in its penal regime.
The judgement is not that OP did not kill R. the judgment is that the prosecution has not proven OP guilty of murder – murder is a technical term having strict legal definition as is culpable homicide.
Judicial interpretation Oscar killed Reeva (caused her death), but he did not murder her. He was negligent in his actions which fell short of that of a reasonable person and thus caused her death.

Personal Legal explanation of Oscar Pistorius Verdict

Here is my considered legal opinion to the reaction on the verdict in the Oscar Pistorious case. (Which we will all have forgotten about next week). I hope anyone reading will approach with an open mind…
It is for the prosecution to prove that OP is guilty and not for OP to prove that he is innocent, furthermore, we do not have all the evidence before us, but a summary distilled for us by a biased media.
So first we have the physical act of killing which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) this was not disputed by the defence. Second we have causation. i.e. did the act of the defendant OP cause the death of the Reeva? That was not also in dispute.
To sustain a conviction you have to prove BRD that the above happened while the defendant had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to R or another. The intention is not diluted by the intention to kill or cause GBH being directed to another. This is where I think the prosecution did not exercise diligent prosecution by trying to prove and ‘either or’ case. They tried to prove that OP had intention to either kill R in a fit of rage OR kill an intruder with intent.
What this means for the standard of proof is that each alternative weakens the proof of the other alternative.
Let me illustrate. Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP killed R with the requisite intent? No, because they suggest that he may have been aiming to kill an intruder. So intent is not proved BRD.
Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP intended to kill an intruder with the requisite intent? No, because they maintain that he may have had intent to kill R.
By maintaining both alternatives could have happened the prosecution introduced reasonable doubt that either alternative happened. I believe they intended to prove the OP killed R with intent, but while they were still sub judice (course of trial) they realised their evidence will not suffice for proof BRD. Had they evaluated their evidence properly BEFORE trial they should have gone with the second alternative.
Mistaken identity does not dilute intent. Thus if A intended to kill B but killed C, subject to the actus reus being proved, A will still be guilty of murder.
The difficulty in proving the mental element or mens rea of murder is why there is a whole raft of other convictions available for unlawful killing which give the judges the discretion to sentence relative to the seriousness of the crime, taking into account the purposes of the legal system in its penal regime.
The judgement is not that OP did not kill R. the judgment is that the prosecution has not proven OP guilty of murder – murder is a technical term having strict legal definition as is culpable homicide.
Judicial interpretation Oscar killed Reeva (caused her death), but he did not murder her. He was negligent in his actions which fell short of that of a reasonable person and thus caused her death.

Never Stop Singing

Like every Sunday I had spent on the university campus, this Sunday was no different. 8 am and I was dressed to the nines and cramped into the uncomfortable seats of the amphitheatre huddled up to withstand the biting wind, sometimes I wondered was this tradition or belief? But still I came. After a brief opening prayer, Timi took to the mic, to begin the opening praise session, as a member of the choir myself I understood the gruelling practice that came with leading the praise session. Timi and his four back-ups would have spent at least 8 hours in the previous week perfecting the routine. Such rigorous practice was not helped by the fact that as a student fellowship we could only afford crackly mikes and very, very substandard instruments, the drum-set sounded like pots and pans and the keyboard like a strangulated cat, but we didn’t let that deter us. Wires criss-crossed the stage in haphazard lines that spoke the fact that they had been hastily connected at 6 am that morning just to be disconnected at 10 am. Whatever sound produced by the singing team was quickly dispatched out of the amphitheatre to the open air surrounding it because the theatre was semi-covered.
We all stood to join in the singing despite the shortcomings I have hitherto listed. We had all learnt to ignore such things. Contentment actually comes from not having everything. So with great gusto we joined in the singing led by Timi. Timi being a guy of great exuberance had us dancing and clapping with such enthusiasm that MJ could not rival, supposedly. All was going well till we got to on of my favourite songs which has only one line sung differently over and over. “Lord you are an awesome God.” Maybe to signify how ecstatic he was Timi attempted to come down off the stage to join the crowd with this one. With the microphone in his left hand and his right lifted up to heaven he sang, “Lord you are an awesome God.” He took one step down the stage singing, “Lord you are an awesome God.” Unfortunately the wires I mentioned earlier had become wrapped around his foot while he had been dancing and singing.
As he tried to take the final step down, those wires gripped his foot so hard, it almost seemed as if a hand was wrapped around it. They pulled him back sharply so that in mid-descent from the stage he was dragged into a horizontal position for a split-second with his feet suspended over the stage and his upper body over the concrete floor. The next second with a resounding crash, he landed fully prone on the concrete floor. The back-ups sang on “Lord you are an awesome God.” While we waited to see if Timi had been called to heaven. Moving his mic hand to his mouth he sang “Lord you are an awesome God.” Raising himself on one knee he sang, “Lord you are an awesome God.” And finally fully upright he sang “Lord you are an awesome God.” And went on with the program as if nothing had happened.
After the program we checked him over to ensure that he was okay. He was fine. I haven’t seen Timi in years, but the message of his actions stay with me. Don’t wait till you are declared fine till you start again; don’t wait till you rise again before you continue; in life, never stop singing.