The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ecowas Court

  • ECOWAS court orders Fed Govt to release Dasuki

    ECOWAS court orders Fed Govt to release Dasuki

    •Declares his arrest, continued detention illegal •Awards 15m to ex-NSA

    The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has declared the arrest and continued detention of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki unlawful, arbitrary and a violation of his right to liberty.

    The court said yesterday it was wrong for the Federal Government to continue to detain him for undisclosed offences after he had been granted bail by three courts.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel, read by Justice Friday Chijioke Nwoke, awarded N15 million damages against the Federal Government, and ordered it to release him and his property that was confiscated by state’s agents.

    The court, which held that Nigeria was unable to substantiate its continued detention of Dasuki, faulted the search of his houses in Abuja and Sokoto without a valid search warrant.

    The judgment was on a fundamental rights’ enforcement suit filed earlier this year by Dasuki.

    The court said Nigeria raised no convincing defence against Dasuki’s case of rights violation.

    It noted that claims by the Fed Government that he was re-arrested on allegation of misappropriation of funds and illegal possession of arms did not give the government or its agencies the power to arrest and detain a citizen without valid court orders.

    The court said if it was true, as claimed by the Federal Government that Dasuki was re-arrested over offences relating to state security, he ought to have been taken to a court since he was re-arrested in December 2015.

    It said the failure of the Nigerian state to provide reason why Dasuki was being detained without any valid court order after his bail by three courts was arbitrary and unlawful.

    The court faulted the government’s reliance on the State Security Act to justify its detention of the former NSA, noting that the law had been repealed by the 1999 Constitution.

    While noting that the nation’s democracy is imperilled where the principles of separation of power and rule of law are observed in breach by executive lawlessness, the court urged Nigerian Judiciary  to stand up and assert its independence by insisting that its orders are obeyed.

    “Liberty is the rule and detention is the exception. Deprivation of a person’s liberty must at all times be objectively justified with the reasonableness of the ground of the detention and must be assessed from the point of view of an objective observer and based on facts and not merely on subjective suspicion.

    “The most common grounds for a lawful judicial deprivation of liberty are after conviction by a competent, independent and impartial court of law; on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or in order to prevent the person from doing so and to prevent a person from fleeing having committed a crime.

    “This situation and circumstances must be established by cogent, convincing, credible and unequivocal evidence.

    “Applying these principles and laws to the state at hand, can it be stated without fear of contradiction that the arrest and detention of the applicant are arbitrary and unlawful? The answer is an obvious yes.

    “Nigeria is under democratic governance, where the rule of law reigns and separation of power is practised. The three arms of government should perform their respective functions without hindrance or interference from the other.

    “The principle of the rule of law is a safeguard against arbitrary governance and a foundation of good governance. Under the Nigerian  law, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

    “The applicant alleged that in his maiden presidential media chat, the President of the defendant announced that the applicant will not be released because of the weight of the crime he committed against the state and because he is likely to jump bail. The above statement, if established, offends the principle of presumption of innocent.

    “Re-arresting the applicant immediately after he has been granted bail by a court of competent jurisdiction makes mockery of the country’s democracy, which is anchored on the rule of law and separation of power.

    “A party not satisfied with the ruling of the court has a right to apply for judicial review and apply for a stay of execution of the ruling, but not to ignore it and carry on as though the court order is not binding on it.

    “The defendant in this case took law into their hands when they arrested and continued to detain the defendant without any legal justification.”

    The court declined to grant Dasuki’s prayer for a perpetual injunction against further arrest and detention.

    It was learnt yesterday the decision of the court is ordinarily not appealable. An appeal panel of the court could only be constituted to entertain an appeal raised on the grounds of lack of fair hearing alone.

     

     

  • ECOWAS court laments non execution of judgment by member states

    The ECOWAS Court has expressed concern over non implementation of its judgment by the members’ states.

    The Vice President of the Court, Justice Micah Wright told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja that only three out of 15 member states had put in place mechanism to execute the court’s decision.

    “The court has experienced a couple of hardships or impediments as you say in the dispensation of its work, for example, notably in the execution of the judgment of the court.

    “The court as you know does not have a police and the court does not execute or implement its own decisions, the court depends upon the goodwill of the member states.

    “So, when the court renders a judgment, the court forwards the judgment to the member states and requests the member states to execute or implement that judgment – that is one of the impediments we have.

    “Out of the 15 countries, our last information was that only three states had put in place proper mechanisms for the enforcement of judgment by this court, the countries are Nigeria, Guinea and Togo,” he said.

    According to him, those are the only three countries that have mechanisms to receive and implement or execute the decision of the court.

    Wright said that the court was embarking on efforts to get other member states to see the wisdom in complying with the judgment issued by the court.

    The Vice President said that another impediment that the court was facing was insufficient fund for its operation due to non-payment of levy by member states.

    “ The court and by extension the entire community is facing financial difficulties where member states are not paying up the community levy and that is the means of finance for all ECOWAS activities.

    “The court is always at disadvantage when the funds are being distributed. But we have to take more initiatives to impress it upon the commission the mandate of the court is of such that the court is alone.

    “The court cannot source external funding like the commission or like other institutions. We don’t want to compromise our independence and neutrality by going out to seek donor funding.
    “Where the donor will have to dictate to the court the kinds of things they want the court to engage in, we want to maintain our independence and autonomy within the ECOWAS infrastructure,” he said.
    According to him, the court has been lobbying with the commission to ensure that the fund disbursement will be more favourable to the court’s interest.

    He said that another critical challenge the court was facing was inadequate space for office facilities that would give it proper accommodation.

    According to him, at the moment the court has two facilities separated because the space in each one of them is not sufficient to host all the staff members of the court.

    He said that the facilities Nigeria provided as its obligation as the host community in line with the treaty signed was becoming smaller because of the growth in the number of staff.

    “We have observed that over the last 15 years, the staff of the court have outgrown the number of facilities we have already , we are repeating our call to the government of Nigeria to met up to its obligations.

    “It is not a favour, it is a treaty obligation undertaken by Nigeria to host the court and that obligation places the responsibility on Nigeria to provide facilities to whichever institution it hosts.

    “So I must say that this administration has taken one step because a month ago, the management of the court met with the minister of state ministry of foreign affairs and was kind enough to inform us that she would convey the concern of the court to the president.

    “I’m sure that the president will use his good faith to discharge the responsibility of the obligation,” he said.

  • ECOWAS court gets new president

    ECOWAS Community Court of Justice on Saturday in Abuja elected Justice Jérôme Traoré from Burkina Faso as its new president.

    The ECOWAS Head of Information Department, Mr. Sunny Ugoh, announced this in a statement in Abuja.

    The statement said Jérôme took over from Justice Maria Do Céu Silva who just served out her two-year tenure.

    “Justice Traore, who becomes the first male president of the 15-year-old court, will serve a two-year term with other members of the bureau.

    “The new president, who replaces Justice Maria, whose two-year term ends today (Saturday), was until his election the Dean of the Court,” the statement said.

    Besides, the statement said Justice Micah Wright from Liberia and Justice Hameye Mahalmadane from Mali would now serve as the court’s vice-president and dean respectively.

    News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the newly elected justices will be responsible for the court’s programmes, while providing policy guidelines for the court’s management.

  • FG to explain reasons for Dasuki’s detention

    FG to explain reasons for Dasuki’s detention

    The Federal Government will on Thursday explain why a former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, is still in detention.

    The Nation gathered on Tuesday that the state intends to utilise the opportunity granted it by the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to call oral evidence for that purpose.

    The ECOWAS Court on Tuesday granted the government’s request to lead oral evidence in the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Dasuki.

    Justice Friday Nwoke, who presided over a three-man bench, ordered Dasuki to present his case on Wednesday, while the government will file its defence on Thursday.

    Lawyer to the federal government, Tajani Ganzali, in his application to lead oral evidence, told the court the state intends to make public, the alleged atrocities committed by Dasuki while in office.

    He said the state will call “insiders” who will give details of what happened under Dasuki and why the federal government cannot grant him freedom for now.

    Justice Nwoke said: “Having listened to parties in this matter and the parties having filed and put all necessary documents and exhibits at the disposal of this court, and having granted accelerated hearing in this matter, it is in the interest of justice that this case must be expeditiously dealt with.

    “In this regard, the plaintiff is hereby ordered to make out his case on Wednesday, May 18 and the defendant to ventilate its defense the following day, May 19, after which we will adjourn for judgment.”

  • ECOWAS court to hear Dasuki’s suit

    ECOWAS court to hear Dasuki’s suit

    The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) said yesterday it had jurisdiction to hear a suit by former National Security Adviser (NSA) Mohammed Sambo Dasuki.

    Dasuki brought a fundamental rights enforcement suit before the court, challenging his continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    He contends among others that his detention was a violation of his rights on the grounds, among others, that not only has he been granted bail by Nigerian courts, there was no subsisting order for his detention.

    In a ruling yesterday, a three-man bench of the ECOWAS Court dismissed Federal Government’s objection to its hearing of the suit.

    Justice Friday Chijoke Nwoke, who presided and read the ruling, held that the Nigerian government, represented by Tijani Ganzali, misunderstood the kernel of Dasuki’s case by arguing that it bordered on contempt of the order made by Nigerian courts.

    The judge said Dasuki’s case was mainly a challenge of the alleged breach of his rights by agents of the Nigerian government.

    “In determining jurisdiction, the court is to look at the facts as stated by the plaintiff and the prayers he sought, not the defendant’s.

    “A careful analyses of the facts by the applicant is that he was unlawfully detained without committing any offence, and that his continued detention was as a result of the defendant’s President’s statement that he will not be released,” he said.

    On the Nigerian government’s argument that a similar case was pending in local courts, Justice Nwoke believed that the case before the Nigerian courts were criminal and not related to rights abuse.

    He added that no similar case pending before any other international court, which ordinarily, would have denied his court the necessary jurisdiction.

    “It is beyond contention that the issues raised in this matter borders on human rights violation. The defendant’s argument that a similar case is pending in Nigerian court is unfounded.

    “The pendency of any similar case in Nigeria does not amount to an international court. An individual can maintain a fundamental rights enforcement case before this court, even if he has not exhausted local remedies.

    “The case before this court is not similar with the criminal ones before the local courts. This application (suit by Dasuki) is declared admissible.

    “This court dismisses the objection of the Federal Government. Cost is to abide the final determination of the case,” Justice Nwoke said.

    He adjourned to May 17 and 18 for definite hearing of the substantive case.

     

     

  • Fed Govt urges ECOWAS Court to shun Dasuki’s suit

    Fed Govt urges ECOWAS Court to shun Dasuki’s suit

    The Federal Government has asked the Economic Community of West African State (ECOWAS) court not to hear a suit brought before it by ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Colonel Sambo Dasuki.

    The government, in a notice of preliminary objection, argued that the subject of the suit was not within the court’s jurisdiction. It contented that the issues contained in Dasuki’s suit were being addressed by Nigerian courts.

    Dasuki is challenging his detention by the Department of State Services (DSS). He believed his detention and the temporary seizure of his property amounted to violation of his rights as guaranteed by international statutes and the nation’s Constitution.

    Arguing the objection yesterday, lawyer to the Federal Government T. A Gadzali urged the court not to hear the substantive suit.

    He contended that the government had not breached any of the applicant’s rights because two courts held, in separate ruling that Dasuki’s detention was not in violation of any order.

    Gadzali argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS court to assume supervisory role over Nigerian courts. He added that it was not also within the powers of the regional court to enforce orders made by the country’s court.

    He contended that by his suit, Dasuki seeks to move the court to  act on issues before Nigerian courts where criminal charges were pending against the ex-NSA.

    “If he feels that the orders for his bail were being disobeyed, the applicant knows what to do. He has the option of going before any of the courts that made the orders and proceed against them for contempt. He cannot come here because this court cannot enforce the orders of Nigerian courts,” Gadzali said.

    In a counter argument, lawyer to Dasuki, Wale Balogun, said the facts in relation to the case were not contentious.

    The court has adjourned to April 11 for ruling on whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Biafra: Nnamdi Kanu drags FG to ECOWAS Court

    • Demands $800m compensation

    Director of Radio Biafra and Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has sued the federal government at the ECOWAS Court over alleged illegal detention.

    Kanu, who has been in custody since December 2015, is also demanding $800million from the federal government for his detention.

    Joined in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and Director General of State Security Services (SSS).

    In a suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/06/16 filed at the Court in Abuja by his counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Kanu claims his continued detention violates Articles 1- 14 and 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

    He also said it was in gross violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as resolution 2625 (XXV) of the United Nations Charter of 1970.

    Kanu also pointed out that rulings of Courts of competent jurisdiction and orders made directing the defendants to release him were flagrantly disobeyed.

    He further attached photographs and video clips of alleged genocidal massacre and unlawful killing of his supporters and members during a civil protest in Aba, Abia State.

  • ECOWAS court orders Niger to pay $.75m compensation to slain ex-president’s family

    Niger Republic  is to pay a compensation of 435 million CFA francs (663,000 euros, $750,000) to the family of former president Ibrahim Bare Mainassara, the ECOWAS Court of Justice ordered yesterday.

    Mainasara  was killed by members of the presidential guard in a 1999 coup.

    Five judges sitting at the ECOWAS Court  ruled yesterday in Abuja that the compensation be paid to his widow, five children and 11 brothers and sisters.

    The panel declared  unanimously that “the right to life of president Ibrahim Bare Mainassara has been violated”.

    Eleven members of the former president’s family sought redress in the court in December 2013, urging it to compel the Niger government to identify the assassins and bring them to justice.

    “The right of the applicants’ access to justice hasý been violated by the government of Niger,” the court said in a judgment read in French by Justice Alioune Sall.

    The former leader’s widow will receive 75 million CFA francs, each of his five children will get 50 million CFA francs, while 10 million CFA francs will go to his 11 siblings, it added.

    The court’s decisions are binding on all members of the Economic Community of West African States, and are final and not subject to appeal.

    Mainassara, an army general, was killed at a military base on April 9, 1999, three years after himself seizing power in a coup following disputed elections.

    The junta that seized power was replaced by a civilian government that December.

  • Delta election dispute: ECOWAS Court to give judgment against Nigeria, NJC

    Delta election dispute: ECOWAS Court to give judgment against Nigeria, NJC

    Baring any untoward hindrances, the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) may proceed to give judgment against Nigeria in a case of rights violation initiated by a Nigerian, Jude Eluemuno Azekwoh.

    This is because the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the National Judicial Council (NJC), who are defendants in the suit, declined to respond to the suit filed on December 9 last year, with processes duly served on them.

    The defendants’ refusal to enter defence, the plaintiff argued in a fresh application, violates the requirement under Article 35(1) of the court’s rules, which require a defendant to enter defence within a month of being served with originating processes in respect of a pending case.

    In the new application filed by lawyer to the plaintiff, Bernard Udemba “an order entering final judgment against the defendants as per the claims in the originating summons dated November 27, 2013” was sought.

    The plaintiff, in the application pursuant to Articles 35(1) and 90(1) of the court’s rules 2002, argued that by declining to enter defence within the required time, meant that the defendants have acted in breach of Article 90(1) of the court’s rules.

    Article 90(1) provides that “if a defendant, on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served, fails to lodge a defence to the application in the proper form within the time prescribed, the applicant may apply for judgement by default.”

    The plaintiff hinged his application among others, on the ground that since the defendants have failed to enter defence by virtue of Article 75 of the court’s rules, “the court can now proceed to deliver judgment in default” because the defendants have exceeded the required 30 days within which they ought to enter defence.

    “The applicant has, by this application, exercised the right to proceed for default judgment in the event that the defendants’ failure to file defence.

    “The combined effect of Articles 35(1) and 90(1) of the rules of this court is that judgment can now be made against the defendants, the plaintiff having applied for it,” Azekwoh said.

    He argued that the defendants’ refusal to enter defence, having been duly served with the originating processes, ought to be seen as a disrespect to the court’s authority.

    The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ continued refusal to respond to the suit amounted to an abuse of the court’s  process. He urged the court to protect its authority and dignity from abuses by proceeding to give judgment against the defendants, as required under its rules.

    Azekwoh principally accused the defendants of unjustly denying him the opportunity of having his case properly adjudicated upon by the Nigerian judicial system.

    The plaintiff, who seeks among others, $10million as compensation, argued that by their actions or inaction, the defendants violated his rights as guaranteed under Sections 3, 7 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR).

    Azekwoh participated in the 2011 Delta North Senatorial election as a candidate of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP), which Arthur Ifeanyi Okowa of the People’s Democratic Party ((PDP) won.

    Dissatisfied with the outcome, he went before the Electoral Tribunal to contest the result.  The tribunal struck out his petition on the ground that his application for the pre-trial session was not by way of motion. He appeal the judgment at the Court of Appeal, Benin, Edo State where he claimed his appeal was unfairly dismissed.

    His recourse to the ECOWAS Court, he said, was because of the alleged failure of the NJC, an agency of the Federal Government with control over the nation’s judiciary, to act on the petitions written by his lawyer, Dipo  Okpeseyi (SAN), asking the NJC to look into the case.

    Okpeseyi, had in one of the petitions, said Azekwoh’s “petition was sacrificed on the altar of technicalities” at both the tribunal and the appeal, thereby leaving unresolved, the questions raised about the competence of the PDP candidate now occupying the disputed senatorial seat.

    “The decision and approach of the panel of justices of the Court of Appeal, Benin in respect of this matter, violently violated our client’s right to fair hearing, compromised his appeal and has occasioned miscarriage of justice,” Okpeseyi said in one of the petitions, copies of which formed parts of the court documents.

    Azekwoh argued that where his appeal against a decision of an electoral  tribunal was “dismissed for no reason in law and in fact, without hearing,” his right to equality before the law, protection of the law, fair hearing and right to participate in government, guaranteed by the ACHPR, has been violated.

    He is praying the ECOWAS court to declare:

    * “That his right to equality before the law and protection was violated as the Appeal Court in Benin allegedly refused to hear his appeal on no justifiable legal or factual ground;

    *”That his rights, as a Nigerian and citizen of ECOWAS, to have his case heard at the appellate level of  the country’s court and be accorded fair hearing were violated when the Court of Appeal, Benin refused to hear his appeal no: CA/B/EPT/230/2011;

    *”That the failure of the NJC to act on his petitions has resulted in the continued breach of his right to fair hearing  and freedom to participate in the government contrary to Articles 7 and 13 of the ACHPR.

     

  • Group takes Gambia to Ecowas Court over two Nigerians on death row

    Group takes Gambia to Ecowas Court over two Nigerians on death row

    Two Nigerians on death row, Michael Ifunanya and Stanley Agbaeze, have sued the Gambian government before an ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja, praying it to stop their impending execution.
    The suit was filed on their behalf by a human rights group, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
    In the suit with the number ECW/CCJ/APP/11/12, instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs by the counsel to SERAP, Femi Falana, (SAN), against the Gambian government, the human right body alleged that the threat of execution while they (second and third plaintiffs) have been denied the right to appeal, violates their human rights to life; due process of law; access to justice and judicial independence; fair hearing; appeal, and to effective remedy.”
    According to the suit,  “The second and third plaintiffs are among 48 people on death row in The Gambia.The plaintiffs, therefore, in the reliefs sought,  want the Ecowas Court to declare the application of the death sentence as illegal and unjust, and to set aside the sentence of death.”
    They also want: “A declaration that the consistent and continue denial of fair trial and rights to the second and third Plaintiffs on death row and in prisons under dehumanising and harsh conditions in The Gambia violate Article 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”A declaration that the public statement and the threat by the government of the defendant to secretly execute the second and third Plaintiffs amounts to violations of plaintiffs’ right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter and the resolution moratorium on executions adopted recently by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the UN General Assembly.”A declaration that the public threat by the defendant to publicly execute the second and third plaintiffs amounts to deliberate and willful disregard of the request by the African Commission to the effect that African countries , including The Gambia that still retain the Death penalty should fully comply with their obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and guarantee to every person accused of crimes for which capital punishment is applicable, fair trial standards.
    “An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and or its agents from carrying out the public threat to secretly execute the second and third Plaintiffs and other persons on death row in The Gambia.
    “An order directing the defendants to faithfully and fully implement its obligations under its own constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as well as resolutions on moratorium on executions adopted recently by the African Commission on human and Peoples’ Rights and the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.”
    SERAP in a statement signed by its Executive Director, Adetokunbo Mumuni, said: “Without allowing them to exhaust their right of appeal, the Gambian government has threatened the plaintiffs on or about August 15, 2012 to execute them and all other persons on death row in The Gambia.The human right group said in spite of several appeals to the Gambian government by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and other organisations, the government carried out the threat and secretly executed nine persons on death row last month.
    It listed the nine persons executed by the government as Lamin B. Darboe; Alieu Bah; Lamin Jarju; Dawda Bojang; Abubacarr Yarbo; Abdoulie Sonko; Lamin F. Jammeh; Gibril Bah and Taraba Samba.”
    The Gambian government has threatened to carry out the secret and illegal execution of the Nigerians and other remaining persons on death row this month but the Gambian parliament has not passed any memorandum endorsing the execution of the Nigerians, as required by Section 81 of the constitution of the Gambia.”
    The plaintiffs, according to the suit, also argued that, the action of the Gambian government violates the resolutions adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the UN General Assembly requiring countries including the Gambia to adopt moratorium on execution of the death penalty.
    The resolution, SERAP said, also asked African Union member states including the Gambia that still retain the death penalty to fully comply with their obligation under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and guarantee to every person accused of crime for which capital punishment is applicable, fair trial standards; and to include in their periodic reports information on the steps they are taking to move toward the abolition of death penalty in their countries.