The law on gunshot victims

WITH the recent passage by the Senate of a bill that permits the treatment of gunshot victims by hospitals without a recourse to the police, the application or misapplication of the provisions of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provision) Cap 398 of 1984 as it relates to bullet wound victims will soon come to an end.  And respite may, at last, come the way of victims of gunshot wounds and many psychologically traumatised Nigerians who often watch helplessly,  the needless death of many innocent persons on the altar of ‘due process’.  The extant law, which hopefully will yield ground to a new one presently, requires hospital managements to obtain police report before treating any gunshot victims. The objective of this law, which has largely been misinterpreted, is to facilitate easy apprehension of criminals carrying gunshot wounds when they seek medical attention. But in the process of trying to realise this seemingly laudable goal, many innocent victims of armed robbers, hired assassins, stray bullets and so on have lost their lives.

The extant law clearly puts the cart before the horse. Innocent victims of gunshot wounds must first be ferried to the police station to secure police report before they are taken to the hospital for treatment. This practice is inconsistent with cross-country experience. Indeed, in saner climes, treatment of the victims comes first and takes precedence over and above any other consideration. But in Nigeria, questions must be asked by medical personnel in liaison with the police before they can attend to life-threatening, emergency cases of gunshot wounds. This procedure is absurd and is even diametrically at variance with the Hippocratic Oath which requires physicians to, among others, place the highest premium on saving lives. In what smacks of sheer ineptitude and callousness, the relevant authorities would rather allow the lives of all victims of bullet wounds to be put in jeopardy than for some felons to escape justice. But ironically, the real victims of this inadequate law are innocent persons since most well organised criminal gangs often have their well-paid and trusted but unscrupulous and criminally-minded medical personnel who attend to their wounded members outside the public glare. Some other crooks even seek alternative medical assistance to treat gunshot wounds.

The recent passage of the Compulsory Treatment and Care of Victims of Gunshots Bill by the Senate is therefore a much welcome relief. When the bill becomes law, the bad and the good will no longer be lumped together for unwarranted denial of access to medication:  every gunshot victim will be entitled to medical treatment, regardless of the reason (s)he was shot. It is equally encouraging that security agencies and medical personnel are now obligated to treat victims of gunshot wounds with decency and to render necessary assistance that will ensure that they access medical treatment speedily. This well-intentioned provision will guarantee victims’ fundamental rights to life and dignity of their human persons which the current regime of rejection has consistently violated with impunity. The burden of apprising the police of the treatment of victims of gunshot wounds is still on the medical practitioners; the only difference now is that they need not have a report from the police before the commencement of treatment.

The issue of notifying the police of the presence of gunshot victims in the hospital is very critical and will require a thorough reorientation of the police and medical personnel on their roles and obligations when implementation begins. This issue is being emphasised because the extant law failed largely owing to the alleged bitter experiences of the medical practitioners with the police while trying to get reports to treat victims. The complaints range from alleged willful delay to demand for gratifications to do reports and to limit interaction with the police in that regard. Many of them simply reject gunshot victims. Also, the provision of the bill charging every hospital and medical facility to receive and treat victims of gunshot whether or not they pay initial deposit is well thought out in spite of its implications for the privately-owned hospitals. This provision will surely be problematic for the private hospitals that may have to bear the cost of treatment should the victims lack the money to pay. But it should not be out of place for the state to defray the cost of treating poor victims of gunshot within reasonable limits.

In fact, it will be within the province of good governance and crucial social service for the Ministry of Health to make budgetary provisions to take care of such emergencies. The country has witnessed too many loss of lives because of rejection of innocent victims of bullet wounds by the hospitals. We commend the Senate for passing the bill and urge the Acting President to swiftly assent to it as soon as it is transmitted to him and ensure full implementation thereafter in order to put paid to the current heartless practice.