Wakilii

Aigbe v Nigeria (Communication 252 of 2002)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2003] ACHPR 38 · 2003 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter
Decision
Communication inadmissible

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Commission declared the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The complainant alleged violations of his rights by the Nigerian Army but did not demonstrate that he had pursued available domestic court remedies before bringing the matter to the Commission.

Outcome

Communication inadmissible

Facts

Stephen O. Aigbe, a Master Warrant Officer in the Nigerian Army, filed a communication alleging mistreatment by military authorities. On 17 January 1996, he was removed from office, detained, and charged with 12 counts of mutiny relating to an alleged plot to overthrow General Abacha. He was arraigned on 12 April 1996 and 12 September 1996, but the charges remained pending. He alleged violations of military procedure, denial of accommodation and pay since July 1999, burglary of his barracks without investigation, and death threats from soldiers and generals. He claimed he sought redress from several military authorities pursuant to Armed Forces Decree No. 105 of 1993 but was denied audience at any level. He alleged bribery obstructed his access to justice and that occult practices involving family members and military personnel led to conspiracy against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication satisfied the admissibility requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — African Charter Article 56(5)
A communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is inadmissible where the complainant has not exhausted local remedies and has not demonstrated that domestic court proceedings were pursued or that the procedure for such recourse is abnormally prolonged.

Legislation cited (9)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • Armed Forces Decree No. 105 of 1993

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Aigbe v Nigeria (Communication 252 of 2002) [2003] ACHPR 38 (29 May 2003)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.