Introduction

Ever since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, the course of the world's activities has drastically changed. The views of people, corporate bodies, states, and the international community, their perceptions of things and events, and their actions and inactions have not been indifferent to the evolution of events.

This virus, whose general symptoms are fever, dry cough, and tiredness, has gained world attention through its devastating effect of over 400 000 cases and over 16 000 deaths in a time frame of fewer than three months, approaching the record of the 1918 Spanish flu. These statistics have left the world in a state of uncertainty or, at worst, in anticipation of doom.

Because the legal system is a product of these factors, it will be affected in the same way that people's economic, social, cultural, religious, and psychological lives are. This gives rise to the question of the constancy of the rights of humans—the healthy and especially the victims of COVID-19. This article will attempt to answer this question within the legal context of Nigeria.

On the 27th day of February 2020, roughly three months after the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, the first case was confirmed in Nigeria. The patient, an Italian citizen, was immediately transferred to the Lagos State Biosecurity Facilities for isolation and medical care by the Nigerian Center for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC), which is the sole body authorised by law to operate quarantine services and station at points of entry in Nigeria as provided in Section 4(c) of its establishing act, the Nigeria Center for Disease Control and Prevention Establishment Act, 2018. Subsequently, those with whom the patient came into close contact were subjected to the COVID-19 test and eventually confirmed negative and consequently discharged. This was the first incident portraying what the Nigerian government would do in the case of a confirmed infected person and a suspected one.

This single act of government roused a series of questions in the minds of human rights analysts, firstly as to the rights of the affected person while in isolation or confinement, secondly as to the rights of some categories of people termed potential suspect carriers, and thirdly as to the rights of the general public, whose rights would be affected.

Effects on the Rights of the COVID-19 Patient

The National Health Act, 2004, is the main body of legislation on public health in Nigeria apart from its 1999 Constitution, which makes reference to public health in Section 17(c) and (d), placing them under the social objectives of the government. Although the constitution doesn't create the right to medical services as a fundamental right like those contained in Chapter IV, the National Health Act, 2004, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and the Patients' Bill of Rights (PBoR) 2018, it elevates it to a near status of a fundamental right for Nigerian citizens. This, therefore, guarantees the right of the COVID-19 patient to medical care, although this service may not be free of charge because the law doesn't accord the disease a special status, and since no disease enjoys free medical care in Nigeria, COVID-19 is also to be treated as any other disease, unless the Minister charged with the responsibility for matters relating to health, in consultation with the National Council on Health as empowered by Section 3 of the National Health Act, 2014, exempts such categories of people (COVID-19 patients) from payment for health services in public health establishments.

While Section 35 and Section 41 of Nigeria's 1999 constitution guarantee the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of movement, the same Section 35 and Section 45 set limitations to these rights, which among them include the interest of public health. It is therefore under these provisions, coupled with those of the Quarantine Act and the premise that the disease is highly communicable, that the isolation, confinement, or rehabilitation of such affected persons is affected.

Isolation, confinement, or rehabilitation by the government here refers to limiting one's movement to a specific geographical location and/or separation from other people, which usually entails relocation. It also includes excuses and discharges from some legal, para-legal, and non-legal engagements of the isolated or confined individual, which might include trials, the fulfilment or discharge of one's legal responsibilities and public duties, social, economic, political, religious, cultural activities, etc.

However, the fact that one is in isolation doesn't invalidate other rights of the individual (this is so because such a person remains human), most especially the dignity of his person. Section 34 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria concerning the right to dignity of human persons provides that "no person shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment."

This, in application to the patient, means that the place of isolation, as it shall be provided by the government through NCDC, must not be deemed to be subjecting the patient to inhuman or degrading treatment; it must be a conducive place for rapid recovery. The basic needs for nutrition and shelter must be met, just as they are for prisoners, although here with much more care and attention.

An isolated person may not be entitled to visitation by anyone other than medical personnel, even if the intended visitor consents or wishes to visit on their own volition, unless it can be demonstrated that contact with such a patient will not infect the other party. This is because such an act may be interpreted as an attempt to kill oneself, which is prohibited under Section 327 of the Criminal Code (of Southern) Nigeria.

Other rights which the patient enjoys are those applicable to every patient as set out in Sections 19, 20, 23, and 26 of the National Health Act, 2014, which include the rights to evaluate the services of health establishments, receive instant emergency treatment, have full knowledge of his health condition and necessary treatment, have the confidentiality of his data, i.e., his status must not be made public except at his bidding, and refuse health care, among others.

Being in isolation or confinement, one is not liable for any default in the fulfilment of one's legal responsibilities outside the area of isolation, which might include reporting to work, appearing before courts, fulfilling one's responsibility towards one's wards, etc. However, any legal responsibility that can be carried out from one's place of isolation remains binding on the patient. Respect for constituted authorities, respect for and devotion to the country and its national symbols, non-aggression of fellow citizens (fellow patients), and so on are all examples of this.

Effects on the Rights of the COVID-19 Suspect

All those who were suspected of having come into contact with the Italians were subjected to the COVID-19 test. This might have been against their wishes. However, what is the position of the law regarding this?

Always, in the interest of public health, the government can limit one's right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as provided by Sections 35, 41, and 45 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 8 of the Quarantine Act, which enable the President and the Governor of any state, respectively, to make regulations for some specific points, all in the interest of preventing the spread of disease. While such tests may be free in situations where they are mandated by the government, they may not be free in situations where the individual seeks them on his or her own initiative.

As a potential suspect carrier, one may be asked to self-isolate or be placed in quarantine by NCDC. It is important to note that such action is utterly legal, as NCDC is granted exclusive powers under Section 4(f) of its establishing act to do all such things as may be necessary for or incidental to the performance and discharge of its functions and duties under the Act, with its primary function being to prevent, detect, monitor, and control diseases of national and international public health importance, including emerging and re-emerging diseases.

Effects on the Rights of the General Public

While the outbreak unexpectedly visited the country and led to the implementation of disparate policies and measures, these policies were not without effect on the general public, particularly on their rights. Among the measures implemented directly affecting human rights were the closure of all educational institutions, curfews, total lockdowns of some areas, border closures, the shutdown of courts of law, etc.

The right to education, a fundamental human right of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to which Nigeria is adherent, was breached; curfews imposed limited the freedom of movement of people; the border closure and outright ban on some countries from travelling to Nigeria affected Nigerian citizens living abroad from coming back home; the right to be heard in court within a reasonable time was breached with the closure of court facilities; etc.

While all of this is true, it is important to note that in the event of a declaration of a state of emergency (see Section 45 (2) of CFRN 1999) by the President empowered by Section 305 of the constitution, every Nigerian citizen risks losing all of his rights except the right to life and, to a lesser extent, the right to personal liberty.

Issues Arising from the Restriction of Movement by the President Based on the Quarantine Act

Recently, President Mahamadu Buhari issued an order under the COVID-19 Regulations restraining the movement of people. The order on the restriction of movement was based on the Quarantine Act of 1926 and has since come under severe criticism by some legal analysts. All of them argue that the act doesn't provide for restriction of movement in the powers to be exercised by the President. However, the Nigerian judiciary has gone beyond interpreting laws line for line to seeking the spirit of the law.

This essentially means the reason for the act's creation. It was articulated in its introduction that it is "An Act to provide for and regulate the imposition of quarantine and to make other provisions for preventing the introduction into and spread of Nigeria, and the transmission of dangerous infectious diseases from Nigeria."

Additionally, Section 4 provides motives for legislation that can be made by the President; Section 4 (c) specifically confers on him the power to legislate to prevent the spread of any dangerous infectious disease from any place within Nigeria, whether an infected local area or not, to any other place within Nigeria.

Obviously, during the exercise of this power, locomotion or movement must be halted (to contain the spread). While locomotion is limited, it's important to note that man is the primary host of the virus, and as such, his freedom of movement would be contained.

Section 4's cumulative effect grants authority and binding force to Mr. President's movement restriction order.

In addition to the Quarantine Act of 1926, Section 45 (1)(a) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution limits the fundamental right to free movement by citing public health.

This is to emphasise the fact that the Quarantine Act can provide powers for the restriction of movement during this period.