The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ecowas Court

  • ECOWAS Court to member states: bring justice closer to people

    ECOWAS Court to member states: bring justice closer to people

    The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice yesterday launched its 2025 sensitisation outreach and external court sessions in Lagos with a call to member  states to bring justice out of courtrooms and into the heart of West African communities.

    President of the ECOWAS Court,  Justice Ricardo Claudio Monteiro Goncalves stated this in a keynote address delivered at the opening ceremony of External Court Session of ECOWAS Court of Justice held at the Eko Hotels and Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos.

     Justice  Goncalves declared that justice must no longer be the “language of the privileged” or “a distant dream” but a birthright for every citizen — from the remotest village to the bustling urban centers.

    “Justice hidden is justice denied,” Justice Goncalves stated. “We are here not just as officers of the court, but as messengers of change. The time has come to restore hope, build bridges, and serve justice where it is most needed — at the grassroots.”

    Read Also: What then is the hope of a Nigerian student?

    The event marks the start of a multi-day programme designed to raise awareness about the Court’s role, improve understanding of ECOWAS Community law, and engage directly with legal professionals, students, and citizens.

    The sensitisation initiative precedes the Court’s External Session scheduled to run from May 8 to 16.

    Justice Gonçalves highlighted a series of reforms that have modernised the Court’s operations, including the introduction of electronic filing, virtual hearings, and online access to judgments — measures aimed at enhancing transparency, reducing bureaucratic barriers, and connecting even the most disadvantaged citizens to the judicial process.

    He also issued direct appeals to stakeholders across the justice sector: urging law schools to integrate ECOWAS legal studies, encouraging lawyers to embrace pro bono work, and calling on judges to uphold judicial independence with integrity.

    Governments, he stressed, must cooperate by ratifying and implementing human rights treaties and enforcing court judgments in a timely manner.

    As West Africa grapples with complex challenges ranging from human rights enforcement to regional economic integration, he expressed  confidence that the outreach would demystify the negatives about ECOWAS Court and empower citizens with the tools to claim their rights under regional law.

    “May this be a new awakening, in which all institutions, all professions and all citizens walk together in the light of justice”, he said.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria,  Justice Kudirat  Kekere-Ekun, who chaired the ceremony, affirmed the critical role the ECOWAS Court plays in safeguarding rights and strengthening the rule of law across West Africa.

    She emphasized that the Court does not threaten national judiciaries but rather complements them in addressing cross-border challenges such as corruption, terrorism, and human rights violations.

    “No single national judiciary can effectively respond to these transnational issues,” she said.

    “The ECOWAS Court enhances consistency in the application of regional legal instruments and provides a reliable forum for resolving disputes beyond national jurisdictions.”

    Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu, welcomed the ECOWAS delegation and praised the Court’s decision to host the outreach in Lagos.

    He described Lagos as the economic and cultural heartbeat of West Africa.

    He reaffirmed the state’s commitment to justice and regional integration, calling the Court’s presence a vital step toward making justice more visible and accessible.

    “This event reflects our collective resolve to strengthen institutions and bring justice closer to the people,” Governor Sanwo-Olu said.

    “Only through collaboration and a firm commitment to the rule of law can we ensure a peaceful, inclusive West Africa.”

    The sensitisation programme continues throughout the week, with public engagements, legal education activities, and the historic external court sessions aimed at fostering deeper ties between regional and national legal systems.

    The event drew participants from amongst high-ranking judges, legal practitioners, civil society leaders, students, and members of the diplomatic corps.

  • ECOWAS Court orders Nigeria to pay police torture victim N5m compensation

    ECOWAS Court orders Nigeria to pay police torture victim N5m compensation

    The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court has ordered Nigeria to pay N5 million compensation to Oluwatimilehin Adebayo, a Nigerian, for the violation of his right to freedom from torture.

    The court also ordered Nigeria to conduct a “prompt, impartial, and effective” investigation into Adebayo’s alleged torture by the police as well as prosecute the culprits.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Adebayo had approached the court with the suit, alleging torture by police officers in Ogun State.

    The petitioner had claimed that the police operatives subjected him to severe physical abuse by beating him with the handle of an axe and tying his limbs to a pole, with chains.

    Adebayo further alleged that the police brutality caused him physical injuries, including trauma to his scrotum, and left him suffering from significant psychological distress and, therefore, prayed for remedial compensation.

    Read Also: Army chief pledges support for works ministry to tackle sector challenges

    Responding, Nigeria had challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case was filed outside the three-year period that is stipulated by the court’s rules and was, therefore, statute-barred.

    Nigeria also contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it would amount to reviewing a case that had already been decided or was pending (sub judice) before a Nigerian court.

    Delivering judgment, Justice Dupe Atoki, who read the three-member panel’s decision, dismissed Nigeria’s preliminary objections, saying it had jurisdiction to hear human rights cases within the community court’s jurisdiction.

    According to her, the statute of limitations under Article 9 (3) (b) of the Court’s Protocol does not apply to human rights violations, hence, the matter was admissible.

    The court further held that the victim’s maltreatment constituted an act of torture, which violated Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a party.

    “The torture was intentional and aimed at coercing the applicant into signing a pre-written statement,” the court held.

    Consequently, it ordered the Nigerian government to pay five million naira in compensation to the victim for the violation of his right to freedom from torture.

    The court, however, dismissed the applicant’s claim that his right to remedy was violated, noting there was no evidence that he had formally reported the abuse to relevant authorities.

    The court’s panel, which was presided over by Justice Sengu Koroma, had Justice Dupe Atoki as the judge rapporteur and Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara as a member.

  • ECOWAS Court rejects SERAP’s suit over 2022 Kaduna train attack

    ECOWAS Court rejects SERAP’s suit over 2022 Kaduna train attack

    The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) has rejected a suit filed by a group of Nigerian activists, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) over an attack by bandits on an Abuja-Kaduna train on March 28, 2022.

    The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because relevant ingredients that could qualify it to be entertained as a public interest litigation were missing.

    SERAP filed the case after bandits attacked the Abuja-Kaduna passenger train in 2022.

    In the attack, armed assailants bombed the train carrying over 970 passengers on the Abuja-Kaduna rail line near Rigasa in Kaduna.

    The attack led to numerous fatalities, injuries, and abductions.

    Read Also: Netizens blast Betty Akeredolu for referring to Nigeria as zoo

    SERAP, by its case, sought to hold the government of Nigeria accountable for alleged human rights violations in relation to the terrorist attack.

    The organisation claimed, among others, that the attack was the result of the state’s inability to provide tight security for the passengers.

    SERAP argued that Nigeria’s alleged lack of measures to avert the attack violated the rights of passengers to life, security, and dignity.

    It prayed for a N50 million compensation for each of the passengers and their families.

    In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the regional court declared the suit inadmissible due to lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.

    A statement by the court said the judgment was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki.

    It added: “The court recognised its jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved potential human rights violations within a member-state, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol.

    “However, the court found the claim inadmissible on grounds that it failed to meet the victim status requirement essential for litigation under Article 10(d) of the same Protocol.

    “In its findings, the court said that SERAP claimed to be acting in public interest, citing previous incidents of terrorism in the region, including attacks on educational institutions and transportation services.

    “However, the court determined that the case did not meet the criteria for a public interest action, or actio popularis, which requires that the alleged violations affect a large, indeterminate segment of the public or the general public itself.

    “The Court highlighted that: The victims of the March 28 attack were identifiable individuals rather than an indeterminate public group, making the claim unsuitable as a public interest litigation.

    “The reliefs sought, including specific monetary compensation, were directed at the identifiable victims of the attack rather than the public at large.

    “Members of the three-member panel of the court were Honourable Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves(presiding judge), Honorable Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (panel member), and Honorable Justice Dupe Atoki (judge rapporteur).”

  • ECOWAS Court gets new president

    ECOWAS Court gets new president

    Justice Ricardo Claúdio Monteiro Gonçalves has been elected the new President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice.

    He was elected on Monday, October 14, for a two-year term of office, following an election by the college of five judges of the Court.

     Gonçalves succeeds Hon.Justice Edward Amoako Asante who led the Court for six years since assuming office on July 31, 2018.

    Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma was equally elected as the new Vice President.

    He succeeds Justice Gberi-bè Ouattara.

    Justice Ricardo C.M. Gonçalves is from Cabo Verde while Justice Sengu M. Koroma is from Sierra Leone.

    They joined the ECOWAS Court on October 6, 2022, in Guinea Bissau by former president of the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Community, President Umaro Sissoco Embalofor a non-renewable term of four (4) years.

    In his inaugural speech, the President-elect, JusticeRicardo Claúdio Monteiro Gonçalves outlined his vision for the Court, which focused on two fundamental pillars: responsibility and dialogue.

    He emphasised the responsibility entrusted to the Court by the ECOWAS laws establishing the Court.

    Read Also: ECOWAS: Jimoh Ibrahim advises leaders on collaborative strategy for development

    He also stressed the need to uphold the institution’s mission as an independent, reliable, efficient, and accessible court.

    He expressed his commitment to fostering continuous dialogue with other institutions and agencies of

    ECOWAS, Member States, and civil societies among others, while also ensuring financial prudence in the administration of the institution.

    The other three judges of the Court are the out-going president, Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Ghana), the outgoing vice president, Justice Gberibè Ouattara (Côte d’Ivoire) and justice Dupe Atoki(Nigeria).

  • ECOWAS Court seeks better funding

    Ahead of its resumption of hearings today, judges and workers of the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) met for several days last week to work out ways of enhancing its operations.

    They met at the court’s seventh judges’ retreat and the 10th judicial retreat, both of which held separately, at the Goshen City, Nasarawa State.

    New judges of the court were sworn in on July 31 for a tenure of four years. They assumed duties on August 27.

    The judges also considered the court’s 2019 draft budget and witnessed the presentation of the new digital case management system being developed by the court towards computerising its case management system and enabling online filing.

    The judges include the President, Justice Edward Amoako Asante (from Ghana), Vice President, Honorable Justice Gberi-Be Ouattara (Cote d’Ivoire), Justice Dupe Atoki (Nigeria), Justice Keikura Bangura (Sierra Leone) and Justice Januaria Silva Moreira Costa (Cape Verde).

    At the judicial retreat, with the theme: “The jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court of Justice: 2004 to 2018,” participants were taken through the court’s past decisions, its growing responsibilities, particularly as it relates to its bourgeoning human rights jurisdiction.

    They also examined measures to improve the court’s operations, ease access to the litigating public, particularly the indigent.

    The retreat, which frowned at member state’s reluctance to enforce the court’s decisions, the recent reduction in the number of its judges from seven to five and the shortage of personnel, resolved to work assiduously to overcome the challenges posed by these developments.

    Presentations at the retreat included: “Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court of Justice on access to the court; an overview of the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court of Justice; human rights in the jurisprudence of the court; non-exhaustion of local remedies as a distinctive feature of the ECOWAS Court of Justice human rights mandate” and “an analysis of the Community Legal Order as declared by the ECOWAS Court of Justice.”

    The retreat also explored topics like: “State responsibility, sources of law and the application of Article 38 of the International Court of Statute by the ECOWAS Court; preliminary procedure, expedited procedure, provisional measures, consolidation and withdrawal/discontinuance in the practice and procedure of the ECOWAS Court of Justice; default judgment, revision, interpretation of judgement and supplementary judgement in the Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court of Justice.’

    There were also presentations on the “written and oral procedure, pleadings, witnesses and expert standard of proof and the role of the judge rapporteur in the practice and procedure of the ECOWAS Court of Justice,” and “‘Improving the image of the court.”

    At the opening session of the judicial retreat, Justice Asante said the retreat was intended as an opportunity for the court’s judges and staff to reflect on the various issues that impact on the court and its effectiveness.

    He regretted the reduction in the number of the court’s judges and the delay being experienced in the delay in the translation of court processes into the three working languages of the court – English, French and Portuguese. He noted that about 107 cases were currently awaiting hearing, while many more would still be filed.

    Asante expressed displeasure that member states were not honouring their obligation under Article 24 of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the court, which required each state to determine the competent national authority for the receipt and processing of execution of the judgements of the court in accordance with the rules of civil procedure in each state.

    He noted that only five of the 15 ECOWAS member states- Burkina Faso, Guinea, Nigeria, Mali and Togo- have notified the court of the designation of the focal points for the enforcement of the decisions of the court.

    Asante, who disclosed that judges, at their retreat, (which preceded the judicial retreat) promised to give their best, noted that the court, between April 2004 and October 2018, delivered 318 decisions, comprising 190 judgments, 105 rulings,18 revision judgments and five advisory opinions.

    He praised the court for its achievement so far, stressing: “Undoubtedly, the court has interpreted and applied numerous provisions in its Rules of Procedure and the Protocol on the court as amended. Through its decisions, the court has developed a rich jurisprudence on its practice and procedure and its human rights mandate.”

    The court’s president urged all staff to be committed to duty and aid the court in the effective execution of its mandate.

    When the curtain dropped on the retreat on October 27, participants were elated about the outcome of the week-long exercise. They said the objectives of the programme were achieved.

    They called for enhanced funding, provision of adequate working facilities, including a befitting structure for the court. They also stressed the need for more personnel, particularly translators, to allow prompt translation of court processes into the court’s three languages, to address the current delay caused by the slow pace of translation.

    Asante, who expressed delight at the success of the retreat, said the court was working on ways to ensure that its decisions were enforced. He noted that the non-enforcement of the court’s decisions has negatively impacted on public’s estimation of the court.

    He said: “We are now working on measures to allow individuals come before the court to enforce judgments given in their favour.” According to him, the process will require that a judgment creditor is allowed to initiate a fresh suit to enforce the judgment, where the state is reluctant.

    The court will then award certain compensation in favour of the individual, and as a result, the judgment debtor state is made to lose certain facilities it has in the commission (ECOWAS).

  • How to strengthen ECOWAS court, by experts

    Legal experts and activists believe that making the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States more effective will enhance rights enforcement in the sub-region, writes Eric Ikhilae .

    Human rights violations remain a recurrent challenge globally, moreso in Africa. The situation is not helped by weak institutions and disregard for rule of law.

    There are institutions established to provide remedy where violations occur, but most of them are hobbled by poor funding and lack of operational facilities.

    One of such institutions is the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court).

    Its President, Justice Edward Asante (from Ghana), said the court is underfunded, leading to lack of adequate facilities and personnel.

    He said the court’s position is made worse by the unwillingness of most West African leaders to enforce its decisions.

    An example is the court’s October 5, 2016 judgment declaring unlawful, the detention of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, by the Nigerian government.

    Till date, the Nigerian government is yet to obey the order that Dasuki be released.

    But, to the court’s Chief Registrar, Tony Anene-Maidoh, Nigeria has done better in the area of compliance with the court’s decisions, when compared with other member states.

    Asante and Anene-Maidoh spoke on October 19 while receiving a group of lawyers and rights activists, led by Chima Williams, in Abuja.

    Drawn from 10 countries in the continent, including Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali and Burkina Faso, the visitors said they were members of the Public Interest Lawyering Initiative of West Africa (PILIWA).

    They said they were visiting the court to learn about its operations and how they and other citizens could benefit from its activities.

    The visitors, who hailed the court for its jurisprudential accomplishments so far, were disappointed by the condition under which it operates. They particularly, noted the evident dearth of necessary operating facilities.

    The court has a single courtroom, that could sit less than 40 people at a time. Its major structure is a converted residential property donated to it years ago by the Nigerian government.

    Asante, who noted that the number of the court’s judges has been reduced from seven to five, assured that the court will do its best to ensure that cases are expeditiously determined.

    He said priority will be accorded human rights related cases in view of the fact that human rights violation is a serious issue in the continent, “because as at today, there are so many governments and heads of government, who are still inflicting all forms of rights violations on citizens.”

    He added that it was the duty of the court to uphold citizens’ rights, particularly journalists, who are endangered because they expose the atrocities of those in authorities.”

    Asante, however, noted that the court faces a major problem in the area of enforcement of the judgments, for which he sought the visitors’ assistance to impress it on member states to see the need to always comply with the court’s decisions.

    He noted that the problem is so bad that so far, only three or four countries have taken the initiative to enforce the court’s judgments.

    Asante expressed the hope that all member states will comply with the new provision in the court’s amended protocol, which requires each state to set up a system for the enforcement of the court’s judgments.

    He noted that the number of judges in the court was inadequate. He said even though the number of cases was rising, ECOWAS recently reduced the number of judges from seven to five.

    The decision, he said, needed to be revisited, because for now, about 106 cases are awaiting hearing, while the court has reserved judgment in 12 cases, to be delivered before the year ends.

    Anene-Maidoh said the court was originally established to adjudicate on interstate disputes and to assist in realising ECOWAS’ economic agenda, including economic integration of the sub-region.

    The Chief Registrar said the court’s human rights jurisdiction, for which the court has become renown, was donated to it by member states in accidentally.

    He added that the jurisdiction, contained under Article 9(4) of the 2005 amended protocol, which allows the court to determine cases of rights violation that occur in member states, “was inchoate, fluid and indeterminate.

    “First, we did not have a catalogue of rights to be enforced.  The protocol did not tell us the scope and nature of that human rights mandate.”

    He said the court was only left to, on its own, chart its course in determining how to execute its human rights mandate.

    On the issue of access, he noted that it was currently expensive for individual litigants to access the court. He noted that since the court only has its registry in Nigeria, litigants are required to covey all their processes to the registry in Abuja.

    He said: “We recognise two weaknesses in the system. The first is that of distance, which is because we do not have sub-registries in member states yet.

    “We have spoken about the need for this court to have a sub-registry in every member state, so that lawyers, irrespective of their location, within the sub-region, can file without having to come to Abuja.

    “The second problem is the absence of funds, in the form of legal aid funds, with which the court could assist indigent litigants, who cannot afford the cost of hiring a lawyer and pay for other logistics while in Abuja.”

    On the issue of enforcement of the court’s decisions, Anene-Maidoh noted that, although the 2005 amended protocol places, on each member state, the responsibility to enforce the court’s judgments and appoint a national authority to coordinate such enforcement, only five out of the 15 member states have complied.

    He gave the names of the five that have complied as Guinea, Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo. He said the failure of the others to comply has made it difficult for the court to provide accurate data as it relates to enforcement of its decisions.

    Anene-Maidoh also identified the challenge of language. He said because the court operates in three languages – English, French and Portuguese – proceedings take a while, because court   processes and additional exhibits brought in one language, must be translated into the other two languages before hearing is conducted.

    He said the reduction of the number of judges to five makes it impossible to constituted a panel of three judges, who speak and understand any of the three languages.

    Anene-Maidoh however noted that the court’s story is not all about challenges. He said the court also has some advantages, particularly in its power to adjudicate on cases without the applicant having to first, exhaust local remedies before approaching the court.

    According to him, under Article 10 of the court’s protocol, individuals can bring complaints before the court, but subject to meeting three key conditions – the applicant must not be anonymous; the case must not be pending before another international court and that the nature of the clam must be international.

    Some of the visitors expressed delight about the court’s activities. They promised to help promote the court’s activities in the sub-region and even beyond. They urged member states to live up to their obligations to enable the court function effectively.

    Williams urged member states, who are yet to do so, to urgently set up the required system for the enforcement of the court’s judgments in order not to turn it into a toothless bulldog.

    He also advocated for enhanced funding to enable the court meet its obligations and provide the facilities needed for its operations, among which is a befitting court complex.

  • ‘How to strengthen ECOWAS court’

    Stakeholders have identi fied ways to strengthen the ECOWAS Court of Justice, such as increasing the number of its judges and creating an appellate division.

    They include activist-lawyer Mr Femi Falana (SAN), the court’s president Justice Jerome Traore,  Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators (ICMC) president Emeka Obegolu and Nigerian Coalition for the International Criminal Court Chairman Mr. Chinonye Obiagwu.

    Speaking at a two-day consultative meeting on Strengthening the ECOWAS Court of Justice and Enhancing Access to Justice in the West African subregion in Abuja, they noted that the reduction in the number of judges would have adverse effects on justice delivery in the sub-region.

    The meeting was organised by the Nigerian Coalition for the International Criminal Court and TrustAfrica as part of efforts to improve the court’s service delivery.

    Falana said while the court has recorded remarkable success, especially in upholding human rights, reduction of its judges was “regrettable” and would lead to congestion and delay.

    Justice Troare agreed that the reduction would slow the court down.

    “If with seven, the court is encountering some challenges, what will it do when it is reduced to five?” he asked.

    Speakers called on the ECOWAS leadership to revisit the decision, while Troare recommended that each member state should be represented on the court’s bench.

    Speakers faulted states who disobey the court’s judgments and orders, saying such action threatened its existence.

    “Notwithstanding the commitment of the court to fight impunity by protecting human rights under the rule of law, compliance with decisions of the court by some of the member states has not been encouraging,” Falana said.

    He identified Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia as some of the offending countries.

    Falana blamed the absence of an appellate arm as well as alleged inconsistency in several decisions for the disobedience.

    He urged the ECOWAS commission to commence the process of establishing the appellate chamber,  which he said was approved by the ECOWAS Council of Ministers at its 56th ordinary session in Abuja.

    Speakers said the establishment of a legal aid to assist victims who cannot afford a lawyer or afford the trip to the ECOWAS Court in Abuja would enhance access to justice in the region.

    “The court should not be for the rich alone,“ Troare added.

  • Court insists Jonathan, Dasuki should testify in Metuh’s trial

    Court insists Jonathan, Dasuki should testify in Metuh’s trial

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has insisted that former President Goodluck Jonathan and ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Mohammed Dasuki must appear Wednesday to testify for the defence in the ongoing trial of ex-spokesman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    Justice Okon Abang gave the directive Tuesday despite the pending motion by Dasuki, challenging the witness summons issued on him, and the uncertainty over whether or not Jonathan has been served with the subpoena issued by the court on Monday.

    At the resumption of proceedings in the trial of Metuh and his company, Destra Investment yesterday, Justice Abang took argument from lawyer to Dasuki, Ahmed Raji (SAN) and other lawyers in the case on the motion by ex-NSA.

    While arguing his client’s motion, Raji contended that there was no way Dasuki would testify in Metuh’s trial without implicating himself because the issues in the case and the three pending charges against him (Dasuki) were interlinked.

    Raji, prayed the court to set aside the subpoena issued on Dasuki or suspend the execution of the court summon until he (Dasuki) was released from prison.

    He argued that his client’s long detention by the Department of State Service (DSS) since December 2015 has deprived Dasuki of ability to meaningful participate in Metuh’s trial

    Raji said the DSS continued to detain Dasuki despite being granted bail by three separate municipal courts and also to be released by ECOWAS Court.

    He said with his client’s continued detention, the ex-NSA had no access records that could enable him to give meaningful ‎evidence.

    Raji said, “In sum total, my lord, up till this morning, all these facts are not controverted by the respondents.

    “He was the National Security Adviser from 2012 to 2015, almost four years, and he treated many files, but he has been in detention for two years.

    “Giving evidence is something that has do with state of the mind and recollection of events. The detention is not lawful and all the circumstances combine to completely dis-orient him.

    “Most importantly my noble lord, he has no access to documents which he can make use of.

    “He is willing and ready to assist the court but he is disabled and unable, that is why we are appealing in Prayer 2 that the court should sympathetically suspend the operation of this subpoena pending his release from detention. The law does not and cannot command what is impossible.”

    Raji further argued that from the nature of the nature of the charges instituted against Metuh, Dasuki could be said to be an alleged co-accomplice.

    He said the ex-NSA would “not be able to give evidence in the case without incriminating himself.”

    Raji contended that Dasuki, as an alleged accomplice, was a competent witness, but not a compellable witness.

    He stated that compelling Dasuki to give evidence would violate section 36(2) of the Constitution which guaranteed the right of a suspect to remain silent when arrested or detained.

    Raji said Dasuki was not served personally with the subpoena, as such; the service of the subpoena through the Director-General of DSS was invalid.

    Prosecuting lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir, and lawyers representing Metuh and Destra, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN) opposed Dasuki’s motion.

    They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

    Tahir, Ikpeazu and Onwugbufor argued that granting the application by the court would amount to a violation of section 287(2) of the Constitution which they said prohibited a lower court from reviewing or varying the judgment of the Court of Appeal which on September 29, ordered Justice Abang to sign the subpoena.

    On Raju’s argument that his client, being an alleged accomplice could implicate himself, Tahir argued that such contention was without basis.

    He said, “The applicant said he is an accomplice and his evidence will be self-incriminating

    “That argument is contrary to section 198 (1) of the Evidence Act.”

    On points of law, Raji said by virtue of the provisions of section 36(11) of the Constitution “nobody standing trial shall be compelled to give evidence”.

    He added none of the respondents had challenged “the fact that we have no access to records and we are not in right mental state to give evidence in this case”.

    Justice Abang has reserved ruling on Dasuki’s motion till today.

    HE said: “The outcome of the ruling will determine which step to take about the first subpoena (issued on Dasuki), but the orders compelling His Excellency, former President Goodluck Jonathan, and Col. Sambo Dasuki, to appear in court on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at the instance of the first defendant (Metuh) still stand.”

    Justice Abang had issued separate subpoenas on Jonathan and Dasuki upon applications by Metuh, who had requested the two men to testify in his defence in his ongoing trial.

    The judge confirmed that the subpoena on Jonathan was issue upon the receipt Metuh’s application for the summona to be served on the ex-President at about 3.59pm on Monday.

    Justice Abang said, “Indeed, at the close of business yesterday (Monday) being October 23, 2017 precisely at about 3.59pm, the registrar forwarded to the court in chamber a subpoena to compel former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear in court to testify a the instance of the first defendant (Metuh).

    “Therefore, in line with section 241(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and having regard to the subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal in the appeal, CA/A/159C/2017, between Olisa Metuh and Federal Republic of Nigeria  dated September 29, 2017 to the effect that it will be tantamount to violating the right of the first defendant (Metuh) to fair hearing not to sign the subpoena, I have no option  other than to sign a subpoena to compel former President Goodluck Jonathan to appear in court on September 25, 2017 (Wednesday)to give evidence at the instance of the first defendant,” he said.

    When asked if Jonathan has been served with the subpoena, a registrar of the court said the bailiff of the court was yet to serve the subpoena on Jonathan as at Tuesday morning.

    The registrar said the bailiff could not be reached after the judge signed the subpoena late on Monday.

    He said the bailiff had therefore promised to pick up the subpoena for service on Jonathan on Tuesday.

    Metuh and Destra are being prosecuted by The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on a seven-count charge of money laundering involving alleged cash transaction of $2m and fraudulent receipt of N400m meant for procurement of arms from the Office of the NSA.

    The EFCC alleged in the charges that Metuh and his firm used the N400m for PDP’s campaign activities during the 2015 presidential election.

    The N400m was alleged to be “part of the proceeds of an unlawful activities” of the immediate past NSA, Dasuki.

    Witnesses so far called by Metuh (who is currently conducting his defence have insisted that Jonathan authorised  the N400m paid to the ex-spokesperson for the PDP from the Office of the NSA  in November 2014, the money being part of the case against Metuh.

    The defence legal team had insisted that given the roles which Jonathan and Dauski played in the N400m transaction, both men were needed as witnesses in the case.

  • ECOWAS Court to member states: respect our decisions

    ECOWAS Court to member states: respect our decisions

    THE Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) has frowned at the continued disregard of its decisions by authorities of member states.

    The court described as retrogressive the plan by ECOWAS states to reduce the number of judges of the court, even when more cases were being filed.

    Its President, Justice Jerome Traore, while speaking in Abuja yesterday, said the concept of justice dispensation becomes meaningless, where court’s decisions were not respected by parties affected.

    Justice Traore spoke at an event marking the commencement of the court’s 2017/2018 legal year.

    The event has as its theme: “Current trends in international and regional commercial arbitration.”

    Justice Traore noted that judicial efficiency was not limited to justice delivered in reasonable time, but also relates to the enforcement of court’s decisions.

    He noted that “to talk of judicial efficiency is to talk first of all, of justice delivered in reasonable time. Our English-speaking friends rightly say ‘justice delayed is justice denied,’ don’t they?

    “Thus, diligence which does not sacrifice serenity on the altar of speed, is without doubt, a guarantee of quality and judicial process.

    “Again, to talk of judicial efficiency is to talk of enforcement of court decisions in the best possible time and in good faith,” he said.

    Justice Traore said reluctance of ECOWAS member states to the court’s decisions was as retrogressive as their plan to reduce the number of its judges.

    He contended that there was no justification to dismantle or “suffocate” the court.

     

     

     

  • Kanu: ECOWAS court dismisses FG’s application on jurisdiction

    Kanu: ECOWAS court dismisses FG’s application on jurisdiction

    The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice on Tuesday dismissed the preliminary objection filed by the Federal Government to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear a case of fundamental human rights violation filed by leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    The presiding judge, Justice Micah Wright, in his ruling held that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

    Wright ruled that the case was admissible and the merit of the case was adjourned for definite hearing.

    The judge then adjourned the case till April 27 for continuation of hearing.

    Kanu is challenging his continued detention by the federal government.

    Joined in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and the Director-General of Department of State Services (DSS).

    Kanu, in the suit, is seeking $800 million compensation for violation of his human rights and an order directing his unconditional release and that of his personal belongings.

    He is also praying the court to direct the defendants to respect, protect and promote his rights to life, liberty and freedom of movement, assembly and expression.

    NAN