PROPOSED REVIEW BILL ON “ANIMAL PROTECTION RIGHTS” IN JIGAWA STATE

[Nuruddeen]

PROPOSED REVIEW BILL ON "ANIMAL PROTECTION RIGHTS" IN JIGAWA STATE

By

MUSTAPHA KASHIM (ESQ) & JIBO NURA (Q.S)


SUBMITTED TO THE JIGAWA STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF LAWS OF JIGAWA STATE, 1998


12TH MARCH 2010


INTRODUCTION
First thing in the morning while driving with a friend to see another doctor friend, we caught a glimpse of two cows that were held tight around their necks and were seriously beaten by the owner. The sole aim was perhaps to make them quick and fast deliver his overburdened luggage put on them to a nearby village that is few kilometers away from Gida Dubu, Dutse Metropolis. It was mind boggling to see that such animals were not fed enough not to talk of being strong or energetic to deliver the services required of them.


THE ISSUES
Therefore, the question of animals' right to life, to live, to feed and be protected against cruelty readily came to mind.
In view of this therefore,   what we intend to pass here today Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members, is perhaps going to be the first known Bill protecting animals in Jigawa State. This Bill if successfully passed into law will in our view prohibit human beings from attaching of ploughs to cows' necks; using donkeys as "motorized" property for transporting heavy merchandized goods and chattels over long distances; castrating male goats to deprive them of power and vigour etc.
What we intend to pass today Mr Chairman and Honourable Members is not different from what is obtainable elsewhere in certain countries and states around the globe-the animals' protection laws. For example, in January 2008, Austria's Supreme Court ruled that Matthew Hiasl Pan, a chimpanzee, was not a person, after the Association Against Animal Factories sought personhood status for him because the shelter he lived in went bankrupt. Matthew was captured as a baby in Sierra Leone in 1982, then smuggled to Austria to be used in pharmaceutical experiments, but was confiscated by customs officials when he arrived in the country and taken to the shelter instead. He lived there for 25 years, but the group that ran it went bankrupt in 2007. Donors offered to help him, but under Austrian law only a person can receive personal gifts, so any money sent to Matthew would be lost to the shelter's bankruptcy. The Association has appealed the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. His lawyer, Eberhart Theuer then asked the court to appoint a legal guardian for Matthew and to grant him four rights: the right to life, limited freedom of movement, personal safety, and the right to claim property.
The idea of passing this Bill Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members, is to seek for animals' liberation in Jigawa state. The most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Even though, proponents and advocates against this view approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but may agree that animals should be seen as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainments. They may also agree that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property, rather than as property to be treated kindly.
Indeed, the idea of awarding rights to animals in most of the states in developed countries has already gained ground and is already entrenched into law. However, majority of the states in Africa such as Jigawa state, the issue is still seen as something alien. Nonetheless, even in the developed countries such the USA, this noble cause has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, while Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby argued in 2008 that the movement had reached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years earlier. Animal law is taught in 116 out of 180 law schools in the United States, in eight law schools in Canada, and is routinely covered in universities in philosophy or applied ethics courses. But the cardinal question here is: do we have such laws in African states not to talk of Jigawa. The only laws to our knowledge Mr. Chairman and Hounorable Members, are when you visit animal game reserves where it's clearly written that ANIMALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE and A RIGHT OF WAY while humans are crossing roads and pathways to their territory in order not to hit them and run!
Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who said that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights.
This argument parallel as it is, overlooked that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position.
Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members, the 21st-century debates about how humans should treat animals can be traced back to the ancient world. The idea that the use of animals by humans—for food, clothing, entertainment, and as research subjects—is morally acceptable, springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the theological concept of "dominion," from Genesis (1:20-28), where Adam is given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Although the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. On the other hand, Islam forbade cruelty to animals where the prophet of Islam in his sermon said that good treatment to animals is paramount. Because some of the basic life necessities such as drinking water and other life essentials would not have been given to mankind if not due to the existence and/or presence of animals in their midst.
Second, there is also the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack rationality and language, and as such are worthy of less consideration than humans, or even none. Springing from this is the idea that individual animals have no separate moral identity: a pig is simply an example of the class of pigs, and it is to the class, not to the individual, that human responsibility or stewardship applies. This leads to the argument that the use of individual animals is acceptable so long as the species is not threatened with extinction.
Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members, the main argumentative part of this Bill is that animals do have feelings, and that unnecessary cruelty toward them is morally wrong. Hence the right not to be so harmed adhered either to the animal's owner, or to the person who was being harmed by being cruel, not to the animal itself. We have to really discuss the importance of preventing our children and matured people from tormenting animals, because doing so by degrees, hardens peoples' minds even towards life compassion.
Mr Chairman and Honourable Members, it could be recalled that in 1821, the "Treatment of Horses bill" was introduced by Colonel Richard Martin, MP for Galway in Ireland, but it was lost among laughter in the House of Commons that the next thing would be rights for asses, dogs, and cats.
Nicknamed "Humanity Dick" by George IV, Martin finally succeeded in 1822 with his "Ill Treatment of Horses and Cattle Bill," or "Martin's Act", as it became known, the world's first major piece of animal protection legislation. It was given royal assent on June 22 that year as An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle, and made it an offence, punishable by fines up to five pounds or two months imprisonment, to "beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep or other cattle."Any citizen was entitled to bring charges under the Act.
Legge and Brooman- the Bill critics,  argued that the success of the Bill lay in the personality of "Humanity Dick," who was able to shrug off the ridicule from the House of Commons, and whose own sense of humour managed to capture its attention. It was Martin himself who brought the first prosecution under the Act, when he had Bill Burns, a costermonger—a street seller of fruit—arrested for beating a donkey. Seeing in court that the magistrates seemed bored and didn't much care about the donkey, he sent for it, parading its injuries before a reportedly astonished court. Burns was fined, becoming the first person in the world known to have been convicted of animal cruelty. Newspapers and music halls were full of jokes about the "Trial of Bill Burns," as it became known, and how Martin had relied on the testimony of a donkey, giving Martin's Act some welcome publicity. The trial became the subject of a painting (right), which hangs in the headquarters of the RSPCA in London.
Other countries followed suit in passing legislation or making decisions that favoured animals. In 1882, the courts in New York ruled that wanton cruelty to animals was a misdemeanor at law. In France in 1850, Jacques Philippe Delmas de Grammont succeeded in having the Loi Grammont passed, outlawing cruelty against domestic animals, and leading to years of arguments about whether bulls could be classed as domestic in order to ban bullfighting. The state of Washington followed in 1859, New York in 1866, California in 1868, Florida in 1889.In England, a series of amendments extended the reach of the 1822 Act, which became the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835, outlawing cockfighting, baiting, and dog fighting, followed by another amendment in 1849, and again in 1876 and thereafter.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members, we hereby candidly submit to you that the above countries and states are not generally different from African states, and Jigawa state in particular, especially in terms of humanity and humanitarian feelings and service(s) rendered to animals by the states of these countries we mentioned inter alia. Such services can be embraced and passed into Jigawa state legislation where animals reserve the right to survive, feed and be treated with compassion.
The Jigawa government can in our view provide soft loans to the downtrodden to purchase open bans, caravans and exhaustible trucks, which can be used to convey their farm produce, goods and services to their destinations. This will surely alleviate the animals' sufferings, because nowadays they are the only "modern" means of conveyance and delivery of properties in rural and urban cities. This is quite unwholesome to the essential ingredients of life sustenance and maintainability. We believe in the existence of symbiotic relationship between humans and animals, which is more of quid pro quo of a sort.

Signed:

1.   Barrister Mustapha(Esq),
Al-huda Law Chambers, Dutse, Jigawa State

2.   Jibo Nura( Q.S),
Consultant Quantity Surveyor, Ministry of Land and Housing Office Blocks Project, Jigawa State

[gogannaka]

Nice initiative.
Ina ma na banning 2 stroke engined okada kuka yi.

[Nuruddeen]

Nice initiative.
Ina ma na banning 2 stroke engined okada kuka yi.

We are still doing something about carbon emission which will definitely consume the over 1 million Achaba(crushers) riders in Jigawa state. I urge you people(Kanawa) to emulate and embrace same in your state whereby you can eliminate well over 2 million Achaba(crushers) from your state. May Allah allow u to act and succeed.