NIGERIA: OPUTA PANEL WRAPS UP HEARINGS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ABUJA 002973

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2011
TAGS: PGOV PHUM NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: OPUTA PANEL WRAPS UP HEARINGS


REF: A. 00 LAGOS 3586

B. LAGOS 0079

C. LAGOS 0845


Classified by Ambassador Howard F. Jeter; Reasons 1.5 (b) and
(d).



1. (C) SUMMARY: The Oputa Panel held its final session on
October 19, and has begun to draft its findings, due by
year's end. While Panel proceedings kept Nigerians glued to
their televisions, many came away feeling the Panel did not
delve far enough into the death of Abiola. Nor was the Panel
able to force former Heads-of-State Buhari, Babangida and
Abubakar to appear and answer questions (the three snubbed a
special Panel offer to make in camera statements without
cross-examination). Beyond a few instances of personal and
inter-communal reconciliation and catharsis, the Panel's
greatest contribution was to provide a national forum for the
airing of human rights grievances, a first for Nigeria.
Despite its failings, this often emotional reminder of the
hardships suffered during military rule and the civil war was
a useful exercise, particularly when Nigeria has experienced
a degree of political tension and communal conflict that have
led some Nigerians to talk about the "order" provided by past
military governments. A by-product of the Oputa Panel may
hav been to further boost the consolidation of Nigeria's
nascent and sometimes shaky democracy. The Panel may seek
funding from the USG in order to complete its report. END
SUMMARY.


=========================
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION?
=========================



2. (U) The National Human Rights Violations Investigation
Commission (HRVIC),known as the Oputa Panel, finished its
public hearings in Abuja on October 19 (hearings were
previously held in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Kano). Highly
respected former Supreme Court Justice Chukwudifu Oputa
chaired the Panel, which received over 10,000 petitions and
memoranda alleging human rights violations by military
regimes from 1966 to 1998. To manage this vast workload, 150
cases were ultimately selected for public presentation based
on popular demand, different patterns of violations, the
evidence supporting the allegations and the possibility of
alternative redress for the violations. The public hearings
also included special institutional and sectoral hearings on
civil society, the military and the security agencies.


=====================
A PANEL MEMBER SPEAKS
=====================



3. (C) During an October 10 meeting with Ambassador Jeter,
Panel member Father Matthew Hassan Kukah optimistically
described the Panel's outcome. Kukah outlined the goals of
the Panel as: (1) reconciliation between individuals; (2)
reconciliation between communities; and, (3) national
reconciliation. Considering its limited budget, the Panel
had provided a cathartic event for Nigeria, Kukah opined.
Reconciliation had occurred between some individuals and some
communities, and the country had been given a peek under the
veil of history to see the depredations inherent in military
regimes. Not every stone had been turned, but enough muck
had been exposed to remind people of the dangers and excesses
of military rule.



4. (C) Kukah noted that almost all of Nigeria's ethnic
communities had complained of "marginalization," through
denial of full access to resources, limited or no services
provided by government, or repression by another ethnic
group. Kukah, mindful of the irony, noted many complainants
were themselves the subject of petitions by other communities
on the same grounds. The Igbos had accused the Hausa-Fulani
of resource strangulation; in turn, the Ibibios accused the
Igbos of the same offense. (COMMENT: Calls for a Sovereign
National Conference to review the 1999 Constitution, thus far
rejected by President Obasanjo, reflect the strong belief
that the current governmental framework will only promote
marginalization. Only a fundamental change in the national
"rules of the game" (i.e., derivation of power and resources
to regionally-based ethnic groups) will protect the
fundamental rights of the groups advocating the conference.
However, there is no guarantee that such a conference will
foster reconciliation; instead, it might degrade into
inter-ethnic caviling and separatist polemics. END COMMENT.)



5. (U) In his closing remarks on the last day of the Panel's
sitting, Justice Oputa commented in a similar vein, saying,
"from the memoranda and evidence from those groups, it became
apparent that there exists a simmering discontent which
should not ever be allowed to boil over. The challenge then
is to find an answer to this dreadful trend called
marginalization; and find an answer Nigeria must."


=================
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
=================

6. (C) The largest single complaint against the HRVIC was the
lack of closure regarding M.K.O. Abiola's death. Numerous
claims came from numerous quarters, including a distasteful
insinuation that Dr. Susan Rice was involved because she
served the tea at the meeting where Abiola became ill.
Despite the time expended, the Panel was unable to make
conclusive findings that would satisfy rank-and-file
Nigerians regarding Abiola's demise. Kukah described the
testimony surrounding Abiola's death as inconclusive and
dismissed accusations against Rice as "sensationalistic."
(COMMENT: Some newspapers tried to give the insinuations
against Dr. Rice high media play, due to the obvious
sensational value of the by-line. Fortunately, this
non-story never gained traction and has faded away. END
COMMENT.)



7. (C) Coming in a close second as the other major public
disappointment was that, after much wrangling, Generals
Abubakar, Babangida, and Buhari never appeared. There was
considerable debate whether the three military Heads-of-State
who ruled Nigeria between 1983-1999 would appear before the
Panel and address allegations. On October 3, the HRVIC
denied a claim of immunity argued by lawyers representing
Generals Abubakar, Babangida and Buhari, and suggested that
it could compel their attendance before the Commission. By
the end of the hearings, however, the three had not appeared
and the Panel never sought to compel their presence. (A
Court of Appeal subsequently ruled that they could not be
forced to appear, but this appellate decision was largely
moot, as it came after the Panel's final day of hearings.)
(See additional background in paras 11-14.)



8. (C) Kukah told the Ambassador that he had personally
spoken to all three, urging them to appear. They had been
promised examinations of limited scope -- no issues outside
the four filed petitions would be allowed. Moreover, Kukah
had informed them that the objective was not to assess
culpability, but to seek socially responsible national
reconciliation. Kukah told the trio that after President
Obasanjo appeared twice before the Panel they were exposing
themselves to charges that they were contemptuous or afraid
because they really had something to hide. Despite Kukah's
urgings, the three Generals never showed. Kukah remarked
that the three were probably seen as the "last (viable
leaders) the North has to offer," and opined that those
surrounding the Generals might have urged them not to appear.


====================================
COMMENT - THE SUM IN A ZERO SUM GAME
====================================



9. (C) COMMENT: The Panel's report, due at the end of the
year, is expected to focus on steps the Federal Government
should take to reduce the likelihood of future human rights
violations. Many human rights problems in Nigeria are the
result of institutional weaknesses, i.e. a lack of human
rights training for the police, the use of an untrained
military for internal security, lack of resources for the
prison system, and a crippled judiciary. Fundamentally, the
severe economic inequalities between the rich political and
economic elite and the poor majority highlight a major
cleavage, and ethnic and religious divisions continue to fuel
the perception among nearly every group that they are being
wronged by another group. While the Panel managed to forge
limited personal and inter-communal reconciliation, it also
underscored that the larger questions, which gave rise to
past abuses, remain no closer to resolution now than before
the Panel convened.



10. (C) COMMENT CONT: The Panel did, however, allow the
"common man" to see in an unflattering glare some of the
major figures of Nigeria's military regimes. This was useful
to remind Nigerians how problematic, ruthless and fractious
military rule was for the country. This was particularly
helpful at a time when civilian leadership is faced with
numerous challenges. The Oputa proceedings reminded many
Nigerians that the past does not offer solution; therefore,
the Panel may have provided a boost to greater consolidation
of Nigeria's nascent and unsteady democracy.



11. (C) COMMENT CONT: An opportunity to differentiate himself
from the Generals may partially explain why President
Obasanjo appeared before the Panel. Many of his supporters,
and perhaps Obasanjo himself, believe the Generals,
particularly Babangida, are even now instigating political
problems, including fomenting unrest in the North. Obasanjo
does not want a direct confrontation with these still
powerful king-makers. However, he might like to see them
slog through a bit of mud. By appearing at the Panel,
Obasanjo implicitly laid down the gauntlet to face public
scrutiny, or fail to appear and face public approbation.
Additionally, Obasanjo's appearance totally undermined any
claims of indemnity the three Generals might have asserted as
former Heads-of-State, since Obasanjo appeared as a sitting
President. However, it would have been confrontational to
force the Generals' appearance. Both Justice Oputa and
Obasanjo are southerners, and a confrontation with the three
northern Generals might have taken on regional and even
religious connotations. Instead of reducing discord, the
Panel could have added to it.


=====================
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
=====================



12. (U) Initially created by President Obasanjo in June 1999,
the Oputa Panel was constituted under the Tribunals of
Inquiry Act to investigate human rights violations committed
by military regimes ruling Nigeria from December 31, 1983 to
May 29, 1999. In September 1999, the Panel was re-designated
as a Judicial Commission, giving it powers to compel
appearance and issue orders equivalent to those of a High
Court. With this amendment, the Commission became known as
the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (HRVIC),
or more commonly, "The Oputa Panel." The scope of the Panel
was also adjusted to include all military regimes since
January 1966, and the duration of its mandate was extended to
one year from the date of its first public sitting.



13. (U) Public hearings began October 23, 2000 in Abuja.
Since then, hearings have been held in Lagos, Port Harcourt,
Kano, Enugu and again in Abuja. The Commission listed for
public presentation and evidence 150 of over 10,000 petitions
and memoranda submitted by members of the public.



14. (U) The Commission has requested a six-month extension of
its current mandate to draft and submit its report, findings
and recommendations. The HRVIC expects to complete this work
by the end of 2001. A preliminary concept of its report
proposes a document in seven volumes, with an executive
summary constituting an eighth volume. The volumes will
cover: the background, evolution and mandate of the
Commission; the nature and typologies of human rights
violations under the military; the summary of the proceedings
of and petitions submitted to the Commission (2 volumes); the
legal and international context to the work of the
Commission; reparations and remedies; findings and
recommendations.



15. (U) Specialists in international and human rights law
will write the report working under the supervision of the
Commission. The Commission is not fully funded for the
drafting and publication phase. The Federal Government plans
to release funds to assist the Commission. However,
additional funding will likely be required. The Commission
has begun to seek such assistance, but has not yet approached
the USG.
Jeter