The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ruled on Friday regarding a case involving Khalifa Abiola and two others against the Federal Government of Nigeria, centered on alleged human rights violations related to the late Mrs. Kudirat Abiola.
In a judgment delivered by the Judge Rapporteur, Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante, the Court deemed the case inadmissible, citing that the applicants failed to demonstrate a direct relationship with the deceased or provide any legal authority to act as indirect victims on behalf of her estate.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the objections raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which questioned its jurisdiction over the matter, asserting that it fell outside the parameters of Article 9 of the Court’s Protocol.
The Court also dismissed the respondent’s claims that the applicants sought to revisit a case already adjudicated by a national court and that the matter had surpassed the permissible timeframe for legal proceedings.
The case, registered under suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/62/22, was initiated by the applicants—Khalifa Abiola, Moriam Abiola, and Hadi Abiola—who sought to represent themselves and the estate of the late Kudirat, whom they alleged was murdered by gunmen in Nigeria.
The applicants asserted that Kudirat was the spouse of Chief MKO Abiola, a prominent Nigerian politician who won the presidential election in June 1993 but was prevented from taking office by the military regime led by General Ibrahim Babangida.
They argued that Chief Abiola was subsequently arrested, charged with treason, and imprisoned without trial in solitary confinement.
The applicants informed the Court that Kudirat had spearheaded a campaign for her husband’s release before her assassination in June 1996.
They claimed that Kudirat’s fundamental human rights, as protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, had been violated by the Nigerian government’s failure to hold those accountable for her murder, including Sergeant Barnabas Jebila, who was named in the results of a Commission of Inquiry.
The Nigerian government objected, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the case before it was admissible.
According to the court’s analysis, the case fell within its purview because it concerned the respondent’s claimed infringement of human rights in failing to fulfil its ongoing duty to hold Kudirat’s killer accountable.
Regarding the question of whether the court could hear an appeal of a matter that had previously been determined by a national court, the court explained that its role was to evaluate member states’ adherence to international human rights standards, not to serve as an appellate venue for national courts.
The petitioners, who were suing on behalf of both their own and Kudirat’s estate, had not shown that they had the legal competence to do so, the court observed.
Because the applicants lacked the legal ability to sue on behalf of themselves and the late Kudirat, the court declared the case inadmissible.
