Stella Odife
Now that the court has ruled on the Infectious Disease Bill (IDB), one can safely comment on it. The ruling seems to indicate that the bill is still at the preliminary stage, and poses no harm to either the litigant or the society, and that stopping the process at this stage amounts to usurping the responsibility and power of the Federal House of Representatives to sponsor, deliberate and pass bills that benefit the people and the government.
Our focus now should be on the merit or demerit of the IDB sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Honorable Femi Gbajabiamila. It is rather unfortunate that every issue, no matter how lofty or silly, is always reduced to the cesspool of party politics, thereby drowning the importance of the issue. It becomes a wrangling between the ruling party and the opposition and not the substance of the issue at stake, in this case, the IDB.
Come to think about it, an IDB couldn’t have come into the Nigerian system at a better time than now. So, what is the fuss? For me, the issue of plagiarism is not important, as the country concerned, Singapore, has not raised the issue. And, moreover, copying other countries’ laws, especially by a fellow developing country, is a common phenomenon. Most of the original laws in Nigeria were received English laws from our colonial master, Britain.
The democracy we are practicing today is modelled on the United States of America’s system. The Fundamental Rights provision, under Chapter 4, to be precise, is a United Nation’s provision. The three arms of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, which we practice, is copied from the USA.
That being the case, adopting the IDB from Singapore should not have generated much outcry on the basis of plagiarism, but for the content of the bill and the system of government Singapore practices. To condemn the bill outright without explaining the reason is to ridicule the country, Singapore, that never solicited for Nigeria to copy its bill.
For Singapore, the Infectious Disease Bill of 1st August 1977 could be said to be perfect and implementable. All the structures needed for its implementation were and are still in place. The question should be: What are these unique and very effective things that make such implementation possible?
The answer lies in the system of government Singapore practices, which will be explained later, but permit me to state that I would have accepted Singaporean IDB had Singapore been practicing democratic governance and still successfully implement the IDB Nigeria intends to copy.
I would also have accepted Singaporean IDB had Singapore had decay in health system like Nigeria. I would have accepted Singaporean IDB had Singapore neglected housing programme for the masses as is the case in Nigeria. Indeed, I would have accepted Singaporean IDB had Singapore neglected its masses to the ravages of poverty and hunger as it is in Nigeria.
I can go on and on. You don’t just hear that IDB works in Singapore, and you ‘copy and paste’ on Nigeria without looking at the Singaporean fundamentals, which make their IDB work seamlessly.
The truth is that Singapore takes care of its people. This is made possible by the system of government that Singapore runs, plus the integrity of their leaders. The Speaker should not have gone to take a bill from such a perfect system that has built a solid foundation for its people to withstand any law, no matter how draconian it may be, without attaining such structural foundation.
Singapore runs a “social democracy government.” What this clearly shows is that it is a type of governance that has both socialist coloration as well as democracy. Its democracy is more of the British type with Parliamentary representatives, whereby the President is the head of state while the Prime Minister heads the government with a multi-party system.
The Singaporean government rejects American liberalism, which is the foundation of Nigerian democracy today. Rather than adopting American liberalism, Singapore adopted as its foundation a “Social Democratic system” which has weaved in the idea of socialism into “Communitarianism with Asian characters distilled from its multi-racial citizenry.”
The dominant party in government, the People’s Action Party, has been in power for long, which makes it look like a one-party system with weak opposition. Far from it, this party has been in power, not because of its authoritarianism, but because of the social/collective communitarian practices.
This style of governance is institutionalised on three cardinal points: universal provision of public housing through a national housing program for everybody; the redistribution of gains generated by state capitalism through the supervision of the annual budget; and the governing of race through the insistence on racial harmony as a public good.
So, we can rightly say that Singapore practices socialism combined with communism and not democracy as we do, although it says that its governance is “social democracy.”
Before discussing the offensive provisions in the bill, a brief explanation of the three systems of governance mentioned is needed. This will help people understand why Nigerians must object to the IDB being imported into Nigeria.
In socialism, everyone in the society owns the factors of production equally. It is a collective ownership of the means of production. The most important underlining factor is that “there is no private property.”
Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for private and corporate ownership of means of production, which is done by investments that are determined by private decisions on prices, production and the distribution of goods.
Communism, on its part, is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society. This is made possible by the government control of the major means of production such as refineries, mines, factories, etc.
Looking at the three systems of government, one is inclined to choose the Singaporean style of governance. Singapore considered its people’s culture, studied and analyzed the various systems of governance and took the best part of the three to arrive at what they practice today.
Under their socialism, individuals are allowed to own property, if they desire, unlike in outright communism. The government is in control of all aspects of economic production and provides its citizens with their basic necessities like food, housing, medical care and education, and also allows those who may wish to pursue additional wealth to do so.
Briefly put, Singapore practices Socialism/Communism with a little touch of Capitalism. Capitalism in the sense that individuals are allowed to own property they acquire on their own. So, one can safely say that in Singapore, every citizen’s basic need is met by government. No wonder it is said that the average life expectancy of the people is 80 and 84; 80 years for the men and 84 for women.
Also worthy to note is that there is no way Singapore can afford to take care of its citizens if it does not have accurate data on the population of the country. It is the data that helps it plan effectively for the citizens. There is electricity and also water for everybody.
At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, all the people were in total lockdown for at least one month. No single soul was seen in the street, except for those on essential services relating to COVID-19.
Palliatives were supplied to every citizen. No one was left out, no food was diverted. They were able to do this because they had the accurate number of their citizens, visitors inclusive. A country that can take care of its people’s needs can establish a bill that, no matter how draconian it may look, one can be sure that it must have factored in the people’s interest. Any health issue is the responsibility of the government.
Coming back home, what system of government do we practice? Democracy with fascist undertones. Like Singapore, we have combined a bit of democracy with fascism in practice. Fascism is a system of government that advocates or exercises a ‘dictatorship of the extreme right’. This is done through the merging of state and business leadership together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
What will give Nigeria the audacity to tell me what to do in my miserable corner, which I call house, in the self-medication I resort to, since government hospitals do not take care of the people’s health?
We practice capitalism to the fullest. Our capitalism has made our 5 per cent population super rich, while 95 per cent languishes in poverty. The middle class has been literally wiped out. With this level of disparity in governance and the lack of care of the citizens, it is untenable to adopt a bill from Singapore in Nigeria.
Now to the bill (IDB): The Singapore Infectious Disease Bill as copied is very dictatorial in its wordings; and power given to the Director-General and the agency for the enforcement of the law is draconian. It is going to subject impoverished Nigerians (95 per cent) to more tremendous hardship.
As long as we still have our 1999 Constitution, the IDB will open the door for legal quagmire as a lot of its provisions are in conflict with the fundamental principles as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution. For instance, Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution states: “Right to private and family life.”
The Director-General, however, under S.15 of IDB, has unfettered right to declare any premises to be an isolation area for the purpose of preventing the spread of an infectious disease. And if a person lives an area designated by the DG as isolation, such a person may be arrested “without warrant” by any police officer or health officer. This act already violates the right of private life under Section 37 of the Constitution.
Remember, the order of the DG is without any evidence that there is something wrong in the area, but by his mere suspicion that something is wrong. The rating of our police force in the world today is 127th out of 127. Is that the police to be entrusted to carry out an arrest without warrant?
Section 20 of the said bill deals on the “prohibition or restriction of meetings, gatherings and public entertainments. The DG may by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such conditions as he may think fit where it appears to him that such gathering may increase the spread of any infectious disease.
Again, note the words: “Where it appears to him.” On that single feeling, the DG can stop any gathering, whereas the Constitution, under Section 40, states that “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons.
With this unfettered right under our 1999 Constitution, the DG, on mere “appearance to him” that a gathering may lead to the spread of the infectious disease, can stop such gathering for 14 days and it is subject to renewal. Any person who holds or is present at such gathering has committed an offence, which either a health officer or a police officer may take any action that is necessary to give effect to the order.
It is suicidal to give the Nigeria Police an unfettered right to take any action necessary. We as citizens are in deep trouble. With the attitude and training of our police officers, anybody attending such gathering should have his “Will” ready as he may not come back alive.
As if this is not enough, same Section 20 of the purported bill says that an aggrieved person may appeal within seven days from the date of the order to the DG, whose decision “shall” be final.
The word “shall” shows the ouster of the courts. So, the DG’s decision is superior to any court of law. We know in law that any provision that tries to ouster the power of the court of law in any matter is null and void to that effect. Also note that the DG becomes a judge in his own case.
In a country like ours, where any contrary view by anybody is seen as a confrontation on the ruling party, we may see political gatherings being stopped on the “suspicion” of such gathering causing a spread of infectious diseases by the DG, who may be working for his appointer.
Same may apply to opposition members’ residences. They could easily be declared “isolation area” and closed down or even destroyed, knowing what goes on in the so-called democracy in Nigeria.
The rights arrogated to the DG deciding on his mere suspicion or assumption of the issues under his control also negates the issue of fair hearing as enshrined in our 1999 Constitution, Section 36.
One could go on and on to pick the holes in the said Infections Disease Bill, but it will all go down to its contravention of the citizen’s rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
One, therefore, wonders if the sponsor of the bill really intended it to stand as it is. Was there any undercurrent on the review of Chapter 4 of the Constitution? If we are to adopt Singaporean Infection Disease Bill, Nigerians must demand that we first arrange our system of governance to the standard or more of that of Singapore.
We must have accurate data on the population of the country and provision of all the basic necessities for the masses, shelter, food, health and education.
We must not allow the leaders to make the same mistake we made in adopting the America style of Democracy without the necessary structure that makes it function for the benefit of the people.
Or our adopting US democracy without consideration of our own level of development, our culture, and our over 250 tribes that make up Nigeria.
That was what Singapore did before coming up with the type of government they practice.
We must run a system of governance that has no tolerance for tribalism/racism, religious bigotry and with accurate data on the population of the country; a country that understands that lifting up the masses is synonymous with the development of the country is what we need.
•Barr. Odife, national coordinator, Women’s Organisation for Gender Issues (WOGI), writes from Abuja