Why Disperse Protesters With Live Ammunition?

Barely two weeks ago, a 10-year-old boy, Somtohukwu Igbanusi, was reportedly shot dead by Nigerian soldiers who were invited by Imo State government to keep traders in check as it demolished the popular Eke-Ukwu Market in the Imo State capital, Owerri.
Somtochukwu’s case is just one among the catalogue of instances where security operatives use live ammunition to disperse protesters. Although the Army Public Relations Officer, Lieutenant Haruna Tagwei, had denied the involvement of his men in the death of the little boy, Somtochukwu, no doubt, may have been a victim of a sporadic shooting by the soldiers; a situation that could possibly have been averted, had the soldiers resorted to the mere use of tear-gas as a dispersive measure.
A few years back, the original inhabitants of Abuja had their own unfair deal with the security operatives too, who opened fire on them as they went to the National Assembly to protest the non-passage of the Mayoralty Bill by the National Assembly.
The story of the ordeal of the protesters for the release of a detained, revered leader of Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky, is still fresh in the memories of Nigerians. According to reports, hundreds of thousands of Islamic Movements in Nigeria (IMN) supporters took to the streets, peacefully protesting in Katsina, Bauchi, Gombe, Minna, etc, the same day, to urge for the immediate release of their detained leader, Zakzaky, but police fired at them when they  got to Bakinruwa junction. This incident, of course, left some casualties who were later rushed to nearby hospitals.
Across the shores of Nigeria, the story is not different. Sometime last year, a similar incident was recorded in Harare, Zimbabwe, when Zimbabwean police reportedly used live ammunition in downtown Harare to disperse an anti-government protest, for which some persons were injured as a result of shootings.
Whether we accept it or not, one known attribute of democracy is the recognition of freedom of expression, which of course can take the form of individual statements or mass demonstrations popularly called protest.
The right to protest is a fundamental human right arising out of a number of recognised human rights. Across the globe, people from time to time see reasons to raise their voices or express their displeasure over a given government’s policy or treatment or action of a person or group of persons.
The strong belief in the strength of unity makes mass protest a preferred strategy for public expression. Even where such moves are opposed by those whose agenda and actions are being threatened, mass protest could still manifest under the right to freedom of assembly, or association, and of course, the right to freedom of speech.
However, the right to freedom of assembly, association and, speech is not without known legal limitations, especially when “propaganda of war” and advocacy of “national, racial and religious “hatred are perceived. This, understandably, is basically allowed in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedom of others. The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 9 to 11 and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 18 to 22 contain clear enunciations of these rights.
Although hoodlums and street boys sometimes hijack mass protests to unleash terror in the society, protest is not intended for violence nor does it portend any form of threat to national security or public safety, neither is it an instrument of civil disobedience.
The tendency, therefore, to scuttle the good intention of protesters through the activities of hoodlums, makes it imperative to have the presence of security agents around the protesters. This is basically to certify them of every good intention and to check possible misdemeanor. Besides, it is not the place of the police to grant permission for a rally or protest, but to provide adequate security and ensure that such protests is executed in accordance with the provision of the law concerning mass rallies or protests.
Rallies or placard-carrying demonstrations have been recognized to be very popular forms of expressing views on current issues affecting government and the governed in every  civilised society. Many governments have had to alter their courses for good, courtesy of mass protests against what were perceived by the governed as unpopular policies.
It is, therefore, not only primitive, but odd to have security agents disperse protesters simply because the subject of protest doesn’t favour the government in power. It is highly condemnable when the mode of dispersal pays little or no attention on the sanctity of human life.
The current wave of using live ammunition to disperse peaceful protesters across the globe is a trend that must be nipped in the bud.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi