Analysis of the Right to Protest and Freedom of Assembly in Selected African Countries with a Focus on Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The derivative rights of citizens to protest and join fellow citizens in peaceful assembly are critical to a functioning democracy. However, the violation of this right by the institutional authority in-charge of its implementation is becoming worrisome. This study seeks to address the violation of fundamental human rights to peaceful assembly vis-à-vis the civil liberty to protest. Notable peaceful protest demonstrations in developed countries, Nigeria and other African countries were examined. Special attention was given to how the protests were conducted and the reaction of governments of these various nations to the demonstrations. The desk-based, doctrinal and qualitative methods which are analytical and expository in nature were adopted as the means of sourcing information. It was found among others, that government agencies are not the only ones guilty of this violation, but government directly and indirectly suppresses this right. To this end, the study recommends among others that beyond modeling after developed democracies, the African countries, specifically the Nigerian government should ensure the implementation of existing legal framework on the subject matter. Furthermore, the police officers should only take an observatory posture during protests and assemblies unless there is apparent reason to act in the interest of the public order.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".