LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL OWNERS

“LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL OWNERS”
BEING THE TEXT OF LECTURE DELIVERED BY SIKIRU OLAREWAJU ADEWOYE ESQ TO THE NIGERIAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, OYO STATE BRANCH AT VETERINARY HOSPITAL, MOKOLA, IBADAN ON 30TH APRIL, 2013
PREAMBLE
I am indeed challenged and humbled to stand before the gathering of brightest members of one of the noble professions in the world. Perhaps you saw something in me that informed your choice, whatever that thing, let me assure you that at the end of this discourse, we would have been individually and collectively challenged.
I cannot but allude to the nobility of the veterinary medicine profession in terms of its enormous responsibility in ensuring the general welfare and wellbeing and the execution of humane practices on “dumb” animals as ignorantly held by man, deriding the neighbours that tell stories about us. The lessons taught us by Mother Nature through animals cannot but smack of the question that: Who is “dumb” after all?
The patience and conscience associated with the knowledge and skills of veterinarians in promoting humane handling, appropriate treatment, prevention of cruelty, assurance of well-being in husbandry practices, in the use of beast of burden, in the herding and transportation from place to place, herd to herd, herd to market and to slaughter is not only salutary but enlivens eloquent testimony to the long held belief that Mother Nature does not work in vain.
INTRODUCTORY PERSPECTIVE
It is, indeed pleasantly fortuitous that the present discussion of Animal Rights is taking place at a time, and in an age when the whole world has realized that the challenges for the future appear formidable without saving vanishing species and assurance of responsible care of our animal species. It comes at a time when the conscionable people of the world have started to ask questions that why are we living comfortably while the treatment of many of our animals regresses to the standard of the 6th century and why animals in Agriculture, Animals in Science and Animals in Entertainment suffer needless torment for profit or that some hallucinating elements did it years back or people in high places savour it?
At home, the situation is beyond insensitivity to the plight of animals but unimaginably extends to animosity of perceived misplaced priority of problems. Many felt that the current challenges facing Nigeria do not admit of the attitudinal change and sensitization on Animal Rights.
Sadly, inadequate knowledge and understanding of Animal Rights has been identified as one of the banes of venomous animosity expressed by many Nigerians to the enthronement of Animal Rights in Nigeria. The civilised societies of the world equally had a fair share of such opposition yet they seized the opportunity to make Animal Rights Declaration a significant step forward in the global fight against environmental problems which, of course, include cruelty to animals and biodiversity loss the Declaration seeks to redress.
DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS
The key words of the lecture are legal, right, Animal, Animal Rights and Animal Owners.
Legal is that permitted by, pertaining to, connected with the law. That, which is recognized, by law rather than by equity.
Right is an interest recognized and protected by the law, respect for which is a duty and disrespect of which is a wrong. Right of a party presupposes a correlative duty on another party. Rights are perfect and imperfect; positive and negative; real and personal; proprietary and personal; in repropria and in re-aliena; principal and accessory; and legal and equitable.
Animal is any member of the Kingdom Animalia or any such living thing other than a humanbeing. Animals are classified into “domitae naturae or mansuetae naturae (tamed or domesticated) and ferae naturae (of a wild nature).
The distinction between domestication and taming is that the former includes control of reproductive phase of the life cycle and selection of parents while taming does not. Taming is the practice of eliminating the desire of an animal to the, and possibly, of training the animal to perform some useful functions. A description of wild animals may be classified into mammals, ungulates, carnivores, Rodents, primates, insectivores, reptiles, amphibians and bovidae.
Animal Rights are the rights conferred on them by law or the State as a result of the State’s interest in them. The legal restrictions placed on human beings in their dealings or interactions with animals form the core of animal rights.
Animal owners are the persons who own or possess animal. In other words, animals are subjects of private and State property depending whether the animal is ferae naturae or mansuetae naturae (domestic or wild animals). The ownership of wildlife in Nigeria appears to have been vested in the Federal and State Governments depending on the territories of the tier of government the wildlife exists.
LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANIMALS
In the belief that mankind ought to respect the environment, treat nature with dignity and collectively responsible to expose threats to the continued existence of animal species for the benefit of human sustenance and survival; and also in the consideration that life is one, all living beings having a common origin and having diversified in the course of the evolution of the species; all living beings possess natural rights, and that any animal with a nervous system has specific rights; the contempt for, and even the simple ignorance of these natural rights cause serious damage to nature and lead man to commit crimes against animals; the coexistence of species implies a recognition by the human species of the right of other animal species to live; and the respect of humans for animals is inseparable from the respect of man for another man.
P R E A M B L E
Whereas all animals have rights;
Whereas disregard and contempt for the rights of animals have resulted and continue to result in crimes by man against nature and against animals;
Whereas recognition by the human species of the right to existence of other animal species is the foundation of the co-existence of species throughout the animal world;
Whereas genocide has been perpetrated by man on animals and the threat of genocide continues;
Whereas respect for animals is linked to the respect of man for men;
Whereas from childhood man should be taught to observe, understand, respect and love animals;
IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED:
Article 1
-​All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to
existence.
Article 2
-​All animals are entitled to respect.
-​Man as an animal species shall not arrogate to himself the right to
exterminate or inhumanely exploit other animals. It is his duty to use his knowledge for the welfare of animals.
-​All animals have the right to the attention, care and protection of man.
Article 3
-​No animal shall be ill-treated or shall be subject to cruel acts.
-​If an animal has to be killed, this must be instantaneous and without distress.
Article 4
-​All wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether
land, air or water, and should be allowed to procreate.
-​Deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is an infringement of
this right.
Article 5
-​Animals of species living traditionally in a human environment have the right
to live and grow at the rhythm and under the conditions of life and freedom peculiar to their species.
-​Any interference by man with this rhythm or these conditions for purposes of
gain is an infringement of this right.
Article 6
-​All companion animals have the right to complete their natural life span.
-​Abandonment of an animal is a cruel and degrading act.
Article 7
-​All working animals are entitled to a reasonable limitation of the duration and
intensity of their work, to the necessary nourishment, and to rest.
Article 8
-​Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering is
incompatible with the rights of animals whether it be for scientific, medical, commercial, or any other form of research.
-​Replacement methods must be used and developed.
Article 9
-​Where animals are used in the food industry, they shall be reared,
transported, lairaged and killed without the infliction of suffering.
Article 10
-​No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of man.
-​Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their
dignity.
Article 11
-​Any act involving the wanton killing of an animal is biocide, that is, a crime
against life.
Article 12
-​Any act involving mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime
against the species.
-​Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide.
Article 13
-​Dead animals shall be treated with respect.
-​Scenes of violence involving animals shall be banned from cinema and
television, except for humane education.
Article 14
-​Representatives of movements that defend animal rights should have an
effective voice at all levels of government.
-​The rights of animals, like human rights, should enjoy the protection of law.
APPLICABILITY OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF ANIMALS IN NIGERIA
In the precolonial Nigeria particularly in Yorubaland many juristic thoughts, proverbs and wise saying which served as charters of social and ethical norms forbade misuse and mismanagement of animal species. In the Colonial Nigeria, many Ordinances like Wild Animals Preservation Ordinance, Diseases of Animals Ordinance, Forestry Ordinance and other Regulations relevant to the rights of animals were promulgated by Colonial Masters and these laws became the forerunners of today’s statutes directly or indirectly regulating human and animal interaction in such a way to bring it in conformity with the dictates of the Declaration of Animal Rights.
In the 80’s and 90’s Nigeria subscribed to many international instruments and a good number of conventions, treaties, protocols, were domesticated as part of our Municipal laws. This period witnessed a significant development of environmental laws in Nigeria. The Animal Rights related Federal laws enacted during the period under reference which are still extant and operational include the following:
• Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999;
• Animal Diseases (Control) Act; Cap A. 17 LFN 2004;
• Bee (Import, Control and Management) Act; Cap. B.6 LFN 2004;
• The Endangered Species Act; Cap. E.9 LFN 2004;
• Hides and Skins Act; Cap. H.3 LFN 2004;
• Live Fish (Control of importation) Act; Cap. L.14 LFN 2004;
• National Crop Varieties and Livestock Breeds Act; Cap. N.27 LFN 2004;
• Agricultural (Control of Implementation) Act; Cap. A.13 LFN 2004;
• Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute Act; Cap. A10 LFN 2004;
• Pests (Control of Produce) Act; Cap. P.9 LFN 2004;
• Quarantine Act; Cap. Q2 LFN 2004;
• Associated Gas RE-injection Act; Cap. A.25 LFN 2004;
• Civil Aviation Act; Cap. C.13 LFN 2004;
• Oil and Navigable Waters Act; Cap. 0.6 LFN 2004;
• Veterinary Surgeon Act Cap. V3 LFN 2004;
• River Basin Development Authority Act; Cap. R.9 LFN 2004;
• Sea Fisheries Act; Cap. S.4 LFN 2004;
• Territorial Waters Act; Cap. R. 5 LFN 2004;
• Exclusive Economic Zone Act; Cap. E.17 LFN 2004;
• National Water Resources Institute Act; Cap. N.83 LFN 2004;
• Kainji Lake National Park Act; Cap. 197 LFN 2004;
• Harmful Waste Act; Cap. H.1 LFN 2004;
• Land Use Act; Cap. L.5 LFN 2004;
• Minerals Act; Cap. M. 12 LFN 2004;
• Petroleum Act; Cap. P. 10 LFN 2004;
• Criminal Code Act; Cap. C. 13 LFN 2004;
• Energy Commission of Nigeria Act; Cap. E. 10 LFN 2004;
• Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act; Cap. F. 10 LFN 2004;
• Natural Resources Conservation Council Act; Cap. 268 LFN 2004;
• Environmental Impact Assessment Decree; Cap E. 12 LFN 2004; and
• The Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act No. N.14 of 2004
The most instructive of the Environmental Laws impacting positively on Animal Rights, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act (FEPA) Cap F.10 :FN 2004 and the Endangered Species Act Cap E. 9 LFN 2004. In 2007 however, the National Environmental Standard Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act repealing FEPA Act was promulgated with commendable innovations that conform to the 21st century realities of Animal Rights. The most important provision of the NESREA Act (National Environmental Standard Regulations Enforcement Agency) is Section 7(c) which mandates the Agency to enforce compliance with the provisions of international agreements, protocols, conventions and treaties on the environment and such other agreement as may from time to time come into force.
The innovation under Section 7(c) of NESREA Act is a welcome development and serves as a reminder to Nigeria’s obligation under the provisions of Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which provides that “every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Arguably, Section 7(c) of NESREA Act can be said to derive validity and support in Section 20 of the 1999 Constitution not minding the uncertainty that flanked the enforceability of the fundamental objectives and Directive principles of the State policy as demonstrated in the case of Donald Morebise Eso Ors. V. Lagos State House of Assembly (2000) 7 NCLR P. 197 when the Court held thus:
“Although the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 are no justiciable, Nevertheless they remain pillars of guide and focus of attention for all tiers of government.”
By the community reading of Sections 7(c) of NESREA Act, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Animals 1978; Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Sections 20 and 44(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the 1978 Declaration of the Rights of Animals by UNESCO albeit, not been domesticated as part of Municipal Laws, is applicable and enforceable in Nigeria and by the Nigerian courts.
The above reasoning finds supports in the immortal words of per UWAIFO, J.S.C at pages 342- 343, Paras F-D in the case of Abacha V. Fawehinmi (2006) 6 NWLR pt 660 P. 289 where he held thus:
Per UWAIFO, J.S.C at Pages 342-343, Paras F-D;
​​
“It seems to me that where we have a treaty like the African charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and similar treaties applicable to Nigeria, we must be prepared to stand on the side of civilized societies the world over in the way we consider and apply them as part of our laws. To my mind, this remains a valid attitude whether in military or civilian government. This will necessarily extract from the judiciary, so much in a military regime, its will and resource fulness to play its role in the defence of liberty and justice. The judiciary must not be seen as assisting those who step on liberty and justice to effectively press them down. Of course, if its role is completely taken away or abrogated in any particular situation, it will be obvious that no blame can be laid at its door for the infraction of human rights and liberties in question in any given situation. I subscribe to every view which supports the attitude that “we can not afford to be immune from the progressive movements manifesting themselves in international agreements, treaties resolutions, protocols, and other similar understanding as well as in the respectable and respected voices of our other learned brethren in the performance of their adjudicating roles in other jurisdictions”……..
See also the case of Mojekwu V. Ejikemi (2002) 5 NWLR pt. 657 @ 402 where the court held thus:
“Virginia, the motion of the 3rd appellant, and grandmother of the 1st and 2nd appellants, a victim of the Nnewi nrachi ceremony, cannot be discriminated against on grounds of her female sex. By the application of the custom, Virginia was subjected to disabilities or restrictions which the provision of section 42(1) of the Constitution forbids. The above apart, Virginia has protection under article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). By the Article, State Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its form and agree to pursue of policy of eliminating discrimination against women.
By Article 5, State Parties are called upon to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the men and women. In my humble view, Virginia is a victim of the prejudices anticipated in Article 5. In view of the fact that Nigeria is a party to the Convention, courts of law should give or provide teeth to its provisions. That is one major way of ameliorating the unfortunate situation Virginia found herself, a situation where she was forced to rely on an uncouth custom not only against the laws of Nigeria but also against nature.”
LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANIMAL OWNERS
RIGHT TO OWN AND POSSESS ANIMAL
The concept of animal rights appears not to give many legal rights to animal owners as far as the rights of animals are concerned. Rather, it imposes a number of duties on animal owners. What appears to be the legal right of animal owners is that, among others, which give the owner the qualified right to own tamed or domesticated animal in his or her possession.
If animal is considered as a subject of private property, while an animal is legally in the possession of a person, the person has the fundamental right to own it as his property and this finds support in the provision of Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides thus:
“No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things.”
This possessory right of citizens constitutionally guaranteed by the Constitution is not without qualifications as variously provided for in Subsection (2)(f) of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Endangered Species (Control of International Trade and Traffic) Act; and Section 498 of the Criminal Code to mention but a few.
WHO OWNS THE WILDLIFE AND MANAGES PET ANIMALS?
The matter dealing with the ownership of wild animal falls within the concurrent legislative list and pursuant to thus, several statutes including National Park Service Act, The Endangered Specie Act, Animal Diseases (Control Act) and other federal statutes were enacted. Before 1990, the Wild Animals Preservation Law in existence were promulgated by both the Federal and State Governments. After 1990, Wild Animals Preservation Acts were omitted but most States of the Federation retained this law till date. The fact that Wild Animals Preservation Law was omitted does not take the matter pertaining to Wild Animals beyond the vires of the Federal Government. Section 20 (1) of the National Park Service Act is illuminating on it where it is provided thus:
“The ownership of every wild animal and wild plant existing in its natural habitat in a National Park and anything whatsoever, whether of biological, geomorphological or historical origin or otherwise, existing or found in a National Park is hereby vested in the Federal Government and subject to the control and management by the Federal Government for the benefit of Nigeria and mankind generally.”
In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the ownership of wildlife is shared by the Federal and State Government. In other words, wild animal is a subject of states property.
Inherent in the right of ownership of wild Animals by the State is to keep and move animals in possession of individual animal owner. There appears to be no legal inhibition to the exercise of the right accessory to the principal right of ownership of the State over wild animals in their natural habitat but same cannot be said of the State or individual’s possessory right where the animal which is the subject of the right is tamed or domesticated. The right to control or regulate movement and keeping of pets either by the state or individual citizen has been taken away by the 1999 Constitution and given to the relevant Local Government Council so that the possessory right is exercised subject to the Local Government Council’s right to control and regulate movement and keeping of animals so kept as pets. In other words, the description of pets covers both domestic and wild animals that are tamed and kept as companion and cared for affectionately.
Section 7(5) and paragraph K(ii) of the 4th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides thus:
“7(5)​The functions to be conferred by Law upon local government councils shall include those set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Constitution”
“K (ii) Movement and keeping of pets of all description”
The Section places the regulation and control of movement and keeping of pets of all description at the doorstep of the Local Government Council as the third tier of government and this finds support in the reasoning of the Court in the case of Knight Frank & Rutley (Nig.) v. Attorney General Kano State (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 556) Page 1 where Paragraph 1 of the 4th Schedule to the 1979 Constitution which is similar to the content of Paragraph 1 of the 4th Schedule to the 1999 Constriction (as amended) was considered thus:
“By virtue of Section7(5) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 the functions which can be conferred by law on Local Government Councils are intended by the Constitution to include the function set out in the 4th Schedule to the Constitution”.
RIGHT TO SUE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ANIMAL
Generally, animal owners, natural or artificial persons can exercise right of action in Tort for and on behalf of animals with a view to righting the wrong committed on animals. The situation is however different in cases of criminal abuse of the rights of animals as the State and not individual can prosecute in criminal matters. Some cases of abuse of the rights of animals with criminal implications include cruelty, bestiality, and communication of diseases.
These offences must of necessity be prosecuted by the Police or the Attorney General. However, animal owner, friend or fancier is at liberty to make formal complaint to the Police to set the machinery of law in motion for prosecution in deserving situations just as the Criminal Law clothes them with the right of arrest without warrant.
The right to sue in civil action for and on behalf of animal is not without a legal challenge under the principle of “locus standi” The implication of this is that if any defender of animal rights desires a protection or safeguard of the rights of animal, he would be met with the barrier of locus standi “the right to sue” and the courts’ decisions in respect of same remain haphazard as different consideration are employed in the determination of whether or not an individual has locus standi to protect the sanctity of the constitution.
In a case between Ram lovers Associations and Ram Owners Association (Re-Application of Sikiru Adewoye Esq.) Suit NO: I/768/2007, I applied to be joined as a party to the suit claiming that the subject matter of the case being the determination of who has the right to stage Ram fight in Ibadan, is criminal, illegal, unconstitutional and an abuse of court process in that Ram fight constitutes cruelty to animal under the Criminal Code and Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act and that court should not be seen to aid illegality but to give effect to the provisions of the laws.
Piqued by my application, both parties promptly raised objection to my application on the ground that I lacked locus standi to defend the interest of the animals. The presiding Justice Adegbola ordered written addresses. While my application was pending the two parties quickly agreed between themselves, settled out of Court and filed Notice of discontinuance. I also objected to the competence of the Notice of discontinuance being an abuse of the process of Court in view of the pendency of my application for joinder on which I have accentuated the grounds of laws I intend to canvass if joined as a party to the suit.
The counsel to Ram lovers Association, Mr. Aiyeokutan was even of the opinion that I was just a spoiler and a meddlesome interloper and that as an individual, I lacked the capacity to challenge the impropriety of the subject matter of the suit in that, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registered the two associations with the Ram fight competition as part of their object clauses and for that reason that I lacked the constitutional right to defend the interest of animals in Nigeria.
We may however take solace in the notable pronouncement of the decision of the High Court of Lagos in the case of Eso v. Lagos State House of Assembly (Supra) bordering on Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution in the challenge to an enactment made in the pursuit of House of Assembly’s Constitutional duties to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Lagos State and whether such amounts to usurpation of the power of the executive arm of government nor breaching the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 when it said thus:
“It is my humbly view that the defendant/applicant is wrong in challenging the locus standi or the capacity of the plaintiffs to sue, when the cause of action is intended to keep the law and the constitution of this country serene and inviolate. It behoves any person who is convinced that there is an infraction of the provision of the Constitution to be able to go to court and ask consequential relief, if relief is required. Emmanuel Ejeh & Ors.v. A.G. of Imo State (1985) 6 NCLR 330 @ 401-402. There should be no justification in this country for the self-imposed limitation to be applied by the Courts in putting out Court any person who genuinely seeks a proper and correct interpretation to the provisions of our constitution”
DISTRESS DAMAGE FEASANT
Aside from the possessory right of individual animal owner, is the right to remedy of distress damage feasant that gives the animal owner right to detain strayed animal and recover damages caused by the animal with the expenses of keeping the animal from the owner. However, the right to detain does not crystallise where the animal has not in fact, strayed. Inherent in the right is the right of sale subject to notice to the owner and police.
The keeper of a dog is, as a rule, liable in damages for killing or injuring livestock of a neighbour. The rule in Ryland v. Fletcher (1866) L.R 1 Exch, 265 states that:
“The person who, for his own purpose (and in the course of a non-natural use of his land) brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is “prima facie” answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequence of its escape”
SCIENTER ACTION
This right enures in favour of animal owner who or whose animal is a victim of dangerous animal against the owner of dangerous animal. It is a strict liability offence if the animal causing damage or injury belongs to the class of ferae naturae which animals are conclusively presumed to be dangerous and the keeper or owner is liable for any harm caused without proof that the animal in question was savage or vicious Animals that are naturally vicious include buffaloes, elephants and most medium sized carnivores. In case of animal in the class of mansuetae naturae, the keeper or owner will be liable upon the proof of the animal’s viscous tendency (scienter) and the knowledge of such viciousness by the owner.
Having said that, animal owners are in fact, legally responsible for and answerable to the wrong or injury caused by animals in their custody or possession where damage is caused by an animal of dangerous specie, the owner of the animal is generally liable except as against a trespasser. Even against a trespasser, the owners of an animal will only escape liability but has no right which enures in his favour on account of that except a formal complaint is made to the police for investigation and prosecution.
CONCLUSION
Today, animals are in brink of extinction with threats from poaching, poisoning, habitat loss, population isolation, prey destruction, deforestation, low productive rates, forest fires, logging, smuggling, pet trade, destruction of breeding habitat, pollution, collisions, livestock grazing and other forms of greed that often stymies sincere efforts to maintain sustainable yield of animal population.
In confinement, animals are easily subdued, slaughtered and molded to the whims and caprices of their human captors.
The revolution in the use of animals for food that came with modern technology is mind-numbing. The use of animal in agriculture is in a consistent upward trajectory. Technology has found even more new uses for animals thereby resulting in increasing the numbers of these animals and their suffering. The treatment of animals becomes a more serious global problem everyday and Nigeria is not an exception. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service in 2011 claimed that at least 33 animals are killed every second in experiments worldwide.
We should implicitly recognize the need for virtue in the preservation of wildlife and humane treatment of animals in food factories and agriculture, in scientific experimentations and in captivity for education and entertainment. Current practices towards animals in meat industries, science and fashion are pathetic and cruel. As changing the condition of human and animal interaction becomes imperative through the law so do people’s conscience in ensuring the sustenance, welfare and wellbeing of animals and their habitats. All this and more, the Animal Rights seek to protect.
Do we know much about animal species that if one is lost; we know what has gone in terms of its potential for food and medicine. Wildlife species form knots in the net. How many knots man can cut before the net ceases to function? What right does our generation have to take options away from future generations by not handing over the species we inherited and hold in trust for them? Still, many have pitted animal against animal in the name of sport.
Animal Rights has to do with ethics of animal utilization by man. It determines how man ought to use the biosphere for the benefit of mankind as a whole Animals must be protected not simply because they represent an economic value, nor because the pain they endure offends our sensibility or emotion, nor even because they are part of our environment or even they are our lower neighbours but because they are living sentient beings which must be cared for and protected from inhumane treatment of man.
Awareness of Animal Rights is an inevitable hit, a galvanizing eruption of environmental energy and a panache that takes contemptuous tirades of misuse and mistreatment of animals beyond the face value. It is an antidote that comes at a time when sustenance of endangered species of animal and the exhilaration of preservation of Animal welfare and wellbeing is in the doldrums.
The sincerity of Nigeria’s Slogan “Good People Great Nation” would continue to receive knock from and call to question by the public at home and elsewhere until we have Police and Magistrates who would be in sympathy with a law to punish person for cruelty to animal and unlicensed killing. Are we to say Nigerians are good except to animals? Orientation Agencies must create in our minds marked enthusiasm for Animal Rights.
Today, respect the rights of animals and have the benevolence of their CREATOR for if the crises of cruelty to and violent scenes of animals were to weigh heavily upon the human heart, much more would it be felt by God who created them.
If you have been challenged, then my assignment is accomplished.
Thank you so much for your kind attention.