Kaduna State Governor, Uba Sani, has advised law enforcement agents to always use non violent means in carrying out their statutory duties.

He noted that they could only resort to proportional force when necessary.

The governor noted that ‘’Force must never be used vindictively or as a form of extrajudicial punishment, or in a discriminatory manner, or applied against an individual offering no resistance.’’

He gave this advice on as the Special Guest of Honour at the International Human Rights Day, organised by the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria on Thursday.

Mr Sani noted that when the application of force becomes necessary, it must be used in a reasonable manner and depending on circumstances.

“This means that violent or potentially violent suspects should be arrested or killed only in very extreme cases, where using force or lethal force is the only option left to stop an imminent risk to life,’’ he added.

Represented by the state Deputy Governor, Dr Hadiza Balarabe, Mr Sani spoke on the theme “Proportional Force and Respect for Human Dignity – A Dialogue in Governance.’’

The governor recalled that right to the dignity of Nigerians is guaranteed under section 34 of our 1999 Constitution, where every individual is entitled to respect and dignity.

According to him, the constitution stipulates that a Nigerian “shall not be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; he shall not be held in slavery or servitude; and he shall not be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. ‘’

He added that the right is also provided for and guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other statutes.

Mr Sani however argued that “despite this constitutional and other statutory provisions regarding the protection of the right to human dignity, its violation remains widespread.’’

The governor noted that this violation is commonly associated with state and federal agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies.

According to him, the challenge is to find a “striking a balance between the protection of the right to human dignity on the one hand, and the use of proportional force by law enforcement agencies on the other, especially when they seek to derogate from this right.’’

Mr Sani described proportional force as the legal standard designed to prevent state actors from infringing upon the right to human dignity.

“When force exceeds the proportional threshold, it becomes a violation of the very rights and dignity it is meant to protect. Proportional force should be intended to protect and not conflict with human dignity.

“Conversely, the use of disproportional force by state actors may result in a violation of the right to human dignity and even other fundamental rights like the right to life, right to personal liberty, right to freedom of movement, ‘’ he added.

The governor lamented that “unfortunately, no law provides any definition or determines with certainty what force is proportional in any given circumstance.”

He argued that “each case must be considered within the context of its peculiarities and exigencies to determine whether the force applied is proportional or disproportional.’’

Mr Sani pointed out that the method adopted by his government to combat banditry and other forms of insecurity was conscious of the use of proportional force in each given circumstance.

He stated, “Kaduna State Government has adopted the ‘carrot and stick’ approach by applying both the non-kinetic and kinetic approaches to determine when to employ proportional force and when not to use it.

‘’While the kinetic approach is useful for immediate counter-insurgency military action or response, and where the bandits are not amenable to any peace pact, the non-kinetic approach is useful for peace-building, long-term and sustainable security architecture.

“Thus, while the ‘carrots’ signify the non-kinetic approach, the ‘sticks’ signify the kinetic approach. The ‘carrot and stick’ strategy involves the employment of peace processes and other conciliatory engagements on the one hand, and coercive military action/offensive or other forms of punishment on the other hand to combat insecurity, depending on the exigencies and peculiarities of the situation. This strategy has proven to be effective and successful in the state.”