The above courtproceedings literallychanged the law and 'opened the eyes of the law'. The decision in the Trendtex case which disallowed sovereign immunity from being a shield against commercial liability had gone full circle to recognise that irresponsible leadership or leaders who traumatise, torture, oppress and maltreat their subjects and others can be held accountable anywhere in the world, even if their government or successors seek to protect them. For example, torture as an act that is condemnable globally and where the state is involved, the condemnation is even louder.Even though faced with tough decisions in its effort to combat terrorism, the George W. Bush led administration in the United states of America could not defend its adoption of torture like interrogation techniques of suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay.The attempt was seriously condemned within and outside the United states and the 1863 'famous instruction' by President Abraham Lincoln that 'military necessity does not admit of cruelty' should not be discarded. In fact the new interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration was found to be in violation of the Geneva convention in the case of Hamdan v. Runsfeld by the united states Supreme Court.The Trial of Pinochet has changed the jurisprudence of sovereign immunity. We wait to see how far this change would go. African leaders, particularly Nigerian leaders should take note as the law of sovereign immunity is eroding fast and they may not have a shield when the day of reckoning comes.Pinochet's last years saw his health failing rapidly. Apart from the London Trials, in 2004 a Chilean Judge, Juan Guzman Tapia, ruled that Pinochet was medically fit to stand trial and placed him under house arrest. By the time he died in December 2006, he had about 300 criminal charges pending against him worldwide for numerous human rights violations, tax evasion and embezzlement of over US $28 million of chtlean state funds.11) CONCLUSIONI am inclined to support the view that official corruption is a crime against humanity. Official corruption denies people basic amenities such as electricity, water, roads, hospitals, emergency services, security and other essentials of life thereby leading to unnecessary deaths, abject poverty and suffering by the people if a country. Official corruption can be equated to torture under which Pinochet was to be extradited and prosecuted.I began this paper by stating that international law and the doctrine of sovereign immunity is still in a formative stage and it has continued to witness changes as witnessed in the Trendtex and more significantly, the trials of Augusto Pinochet. It is however regrettable that Nigerian law is yet to establish clear principles on this important aspect of law. While the United Kingdom has the state Immunity Act of 1978, their courts have also had occasion to, pronounce on the law in cases. Nigeria is even yet to participate and be a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of states and their property. Senegal became a signatory in 2005, while Sierra Leone became a signatory in September 2006.The changes in the attitude of the law towards the notion of Sovereign Immunity is further confirmed by the comments posted on page 52 of 'The Commonwealth Lawyer' Vol. 20, No1, April 2011 which is the journal of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association. The journal noted 'that in the face of regional and international developments, former understandings of State and Nation and of Sovereignty were increasingly out-dated'.It continued further: 'At a supranational level, this idea has already raised the sceptre of a new legal order based on a European super state with the potential further to transcend traditional views of sovereignty and the sovereign state.There is thus a move towards a gradual erosion of many areas hitherto covered by sovereign immunity. The International Criminal Court has increased the intensity of its work over the years. Erstwhile dictators and strongmen are being made accountable for their misdeeds and sovereign immunitv does not count for much. Even issues of International Rule of Law are now engaging the attention of National Courts and domestic Judges in different jurisdictions.I wish to end this paper with the words of learned author Olasupo Shashore SAN in his work which I referred to earlier where he wrote at pages 193-194.'At present Nigerian law on the subject of sovereign and diplomatic immunity leaves much to be desired. Case law does not show any real consistency in approach to the subject, sometimes leaving the impression that one or the other doctrine of immunity applies in Nigeria. Even where the restrictive immunity has been alluded to by the courts in the absence of any real authority decisions all open to doubtful application and ambiguity.Furthermore, there is no legislation for state immunity leaving the judiciary to struggle with the present state of customary international law of other countries.This is not to suggest that one advocates a total adoption of developments obtaining in other countries such as United Kingdom and United states. The purpose of reform is to recoginze the need to provide predictable outcomes to proceedings in which the plea of immunity is taken and the scope of its application in this jurisdiction.'As students of Law and future generation lawyers who will practise law locally and internationally in the global village, I invite you to trunk further and deeper on the topic of sovereign immunity and accountability of our leaders.Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN is a Lagos-based attorneyConcluded
Click here to read full news..
