Introduction

Prior to exploring the overarching themes addressed in this analysis, it’s important to emphasize in an organized and concise manner that simplifying Racial categorization can result in spreading inaccurate information and causing potential harm. This is because individuals identify with not just their racial background, but also factors like their socioeconomic standing, gender, and sexual orientation. Consequently, forming broad assumptions about race can be deceptive and disconnected from the unique circumstances of each individual. In truth, people cannot be exclusively defined by a racial classification.[2]. As per the guidelines outlined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)[3], The notion of race includes factors such as skin color, ancestry, and one’s national or ethnic heritage. The term “descent” relates to one’s societal roots, including their family history, lineage, or parentage. On the other hand, “national or ethnic origin” pertains to shared language, culture, and historical ties. As a result, this all-encompassing perception of race goes beyond just outward, mostly physical traits, to include personal and societal aspects.

The idea that the concept of “race” lacks a universal definition and can vary depending on geographical location and climate differences is quite commonplace. Various regions might emphasize different aspects such as language, culture, or societal traits when classifying individuals. Furthermore, prejudice could be rooted in factors like caste, driven by social considerations rather than ethnic ones. Race-related attributes are not fixed; anthropological evidence demonstrates that environmental factors can lead to rapid physical changes in individuals[4].

The crucial point is that the understanding of race goes beyond mere skin color, given that situations involving racial classification and bias frequently transcend mere physical traits. Historical illustrations such as the Nazi regime’s actions towards Russians and the British upper class’s disregard for Irish farmers during the potato famine underscore the impact of power dynamics and political control in shaping racial interactions. These examples underscore that racial prejudice and bias are not solely guided by skin color but are molded by the prevailing power dynamics within society.[5]

A Cursory Analysis of The UDHR on Elimination Of all forms of Discrimination

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, which expressly includes the fundamental principles that address the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Specifically availed in, Article 2 and 7 of the UDHR, the articles are reproduced for emphasis below:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination

Certainly, Articles 2 and 7 emphasize the core concept of parity and absence of bias. The clauses addressing non-discrimination within Article 2 have prompted substantial discussions, primarily revolving around whether certain specific statuses should be encompassed or excluded from the catalog of reasons for discrimination. Certain nations, notably South Africa, maintained that non-discrimination ought to be pertinent solely to specific fundamental rights, a classification which, in their perspective, omitted a range of rights encompassed within the Declaration, including the entitlement to engage in governance. Others debated that a few of the rights outlined in the Declaration might not inherently be applicable to inhabitants of colonies or territories under trusteeship.[6] Some individuals brought up constitutional concerns within federal systems, suggesting that central governments, in their capacity as United Nations members, might lack the constitutional jurisdiction to enforce certain rights within their individual political subdivisions.[7].

It additionally states that each person has the right to experience all the privileges and liberties outlined in the Declaration, regardless of their racial or ethnic heritage. These rights must be adhered to and officially endorsed by each member state, carrying substantial importance and strong conviction. It is worth noting that Nigeria, as a supporter of this Article, has the authority to uphold it both within its borders and on the international stage. A similitude of this article Is seen under section 42 of the 1999 Constitution which postulate municipally that:

42(1)    A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person: –

1. be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or
2. be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions.

(2)        No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.

It is clearer from the municipal Nigeria constitution that no one is to be subjected to discrimination on any basis except when there is a law that imposes restrictions[8]

As a result, a range of global agreements and accords have been instituted to enhance the battle against racial prejudice and advance the cause of equitable rights. Among these, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) stands out as a particularly pivotal treaty. Originating from the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption in 1965, and subsequently enforced in 1969, the ICERD mandates that participating nations must enact actions aimed at eradicating all manifestations of racial discrimination while fostering mutual comprehension and acceptance among diverse racial and ethnic communities.

Furthermore, the emphasis placed by the Universal Declaration on elimination of discrimination and equal rights has had an impact on subsequent human rights agreements and legal structures dealing with racial discrimination, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.[9]adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 and, even more fully, in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action[10].

Hence, it’s crucial to acknowledge that although these documents establish the groundwork for tackling racial discrimination, the real-world application and upholding of these ideals continue to pose persistent difficulties across numerous regions. The endeavor to eradicate racial discrimination necessitates a blend of legal structures, societal consciousness, educational initiatives, and active promotion, both within the context of Nigeria and on the global stage.

Universal Declaration on Elimination of Discrimination and the position under Nigeria Law

Nigeria is a sovereign nation with constitution[11] which stands above all laws which is emerging to contradict its supreme provisions, it is unique on its own and not subjected to any inconsistency. In the case of NWOSU & ANOR v. FRN (2021) LPELR-55079(CA) held Per JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA that;

“The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) is, and remains the country’s Grund Norm, and therefore no Act of the National Assembly which runs contrary to any of its provisions can see the light of day. Such an Act must be struck down by the Nation’s ‘watch dog’, the judicature.”

Additionally in the case of PRESIDENT OF THE FRN & ORS v. ISA & ORS (2015) LPELR-25981(CA) the court held in its opinion that:

“It is stating the obvious to say that I am in complete agreement with the view of the Respondents that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic instrument and the grundnorm of Nigerian law. Its supremacy is clearly stated in Sections 1 & 3 , Part One under general provisions in these words: Section one: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Section Three “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to that extent of the inconsistency be void” It is clear then that any Act of the National Assembly which is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and the Courts will in an action by an aggrieved party pronounce the Act unconstitutional, null and void.

The query at hand is whether international regulations hold more authority than the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria particularly the thrust of this question, and whether they have the potential to weave their path into the country and subsequently be applicable within the Nigerian judicial system. It is very lucid that the tenet of section 12 of the constitution is manifestly and expressly unique being that it provides:

12(1) No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly (2). The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty.

In OKOYOMON v. A.G FEDERATION (2016) LPELR-57485(CA), the meaning of treaty discussed, there it was held to mean

…. I think it is useful to remember that the relevant law on the matter is now generally governed by the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties. According to the convention “treaty” means an international agreement or by whatever name called. e.g. Act, Charter, concordant, convention, declaration, protocol or statute concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation…

Therefore, as stated in the case of Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000)[12], when a treaty, upon being domesticated, conflicts with the constitution’s provisions, it is rendered null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. This principle is also applicable to the Universal Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination. Consequently,  the Universal Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination remains influential until it undergoes domestication and receives ratification from the National Assembly. In summary, if the domesticated treaty continues to oppose the constitutional provisions, the constitution takes precedence. The only scenario in which the Universal Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination could have authority is if it contradicts any other local laws apart from the constitution.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the Universal Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination has clearly contributed to preventing various forms of inequality in the past. However, it is important to emphasize that we are still anticipating a stronger and more effective effort towards completely eradicating discrimination

Bibliography

A Symposium: Human Rights Comments and Interpretations. Texts collected by UNESCO. Introduction by Jacques Maritain. Sagittaire, 239 pp. In Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Italian and Japanes

Dunn, Leslie Clarence. Race and Biology. Series: ‘The Race Question in Modern Science’. 48 pp. In English, French, German, Hindi and Italian.

Human Rights. Major International Instruments: Status as at 31 May 1998/Droits de l’homme. Les principaux instruments internationaux: état au 31 mai 1998. 5th rev. ed. 32 pp. Bilingual English/French.

Klineberg, Otto. Race and Psychology. Series: ‘The Race Question in Modern Science’. 36 pp. In English, French, German, Hindi, Italian and Spanish.

Race et civilisation. Series: ‘La question raciale devant la science moderne’. 48 pp. In Dutch, French, Italian and Malagasy. Racial Myths. 54 pp. In English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Hindi. The Roots of Prejudice. Series: ‘The Race Question in Modern Science’. 44 pp. In English, French, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Malagasy and Spanish.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Guide for Teachers. Series: ‘Towards World Understanding’, No. 8. 87 pp. In Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Japanese, Nepalese, Sinhalese and Tamil.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51, at 197, pmbl., U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984) (entered into force June 28, 1987).

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), G.A. Res. 40/33, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess., Supp. No. 53, at 206, 208, Rules 7, 9, U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985) (commentary). International Convention Against Apartheid in Sports, G.A. Res. 40/64, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess., Supp. No. 53, at 37, 38, pmbl., U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985).

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U.S. Doc. A/CONF.121/22/Rev.1 (1985), endorsed by G.A. Res. 40/32, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess., Supp. No. 53, at 204, U.N. Doc. A140/53 (1985).

Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who Are not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live, G.A. Res. 40/144, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess., Supp. No. 53, at 252, pmbl., U.N. Doc. A/40/53 (1985).

Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally, G.A. Res. 41/85, U.N. GAOR, 41st Sess., Supp. No. 53, at 265, pmbl., U.N. Doc. A/41/53 (1986).

[1]Author, prolific writer’s and an undergraduate law student at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Kaduna state Nigeria.

[2] See WILLIAM F. FELICE, TAKING SUFFERING SERIOUSLY: THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLECTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS (1996).

[3] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted 21 Dec. 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force 4 Jan. 1969), reprinted in 5 I.L.M. 352 (1966) [hereinafter CERD].

[4] UNITED NATIONS: LAW, POLICIES AND PRACTICE 1005–06 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 1995)

[5] Kevin Danaher, Getting at Hunger’s Roots: The Legacy of Colonialism and Racism, in THE COLOR OF HUNGER: RACE AND HUNGER IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 89–91 (David L. Shields ed., 1995).

[6] Interestingly, the United Kingdom proposed the only successful amendment to the Third Committee draft when it came before the Plenary of the General Assembly. That amendment removed a separate article assuring the applicability of rights in non-self-governing territories and inserting it, instead, as a second paragraph in Article 2. See General Assembly, Summary Records, p. 803.

[7] See, for example, the comments of Lester Pearson of Canada in ibid., pp. 899–900.

[8] Section 42(3) provides: Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes restrictions with respect to the appointment of any person to any office under the State or as a member of the armed forces of the Federation or member of the Nigeria Police Forces or to an office in the service of a body, corporate established directly by any law in force in Nigeria.

[9] UN Doc. A/RES/34/180, 18 December 1979, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

[10] UN Doc. A/CONF.157/24, 25 June 1993, Vienna Declaration

[11] The fons et origo, the highest law which tolerates no desecration by any other law whether it is municipally made or internationally enacted. It subjects any law even to be ratified to a rigorous test objectively before domesticating it.

[12]Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR Pt. 660 page 228 at 288

The post Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination -By Kehinde Emmanuel Oladele first appeared on Opinion Nigeria.