Wakilii

Community Law Centre and Others (on behalf on the Five Victims) v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Communication 564 of 2015)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2024] ACHPR 1 · 2024 Communication Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication submitted to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter and Maputo Protocol arising from maternal mortality and morbidity in Nigeria
Decision
Communication dismissed on the merits after being declared admissible

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 held that Nigeria did not violate the African Charter or Maputo Protocol. The Commission found the communication admissible under the exception to exhaustion of local remedies due to the large number of victims, the low income of victims unable to access legal aid, and constitutional barriers to litigating economic and social rights. On the merits, the Commission held that the complainants failed to demonstrate how Nigeria's maternal mortality rates resulted from a failure to take necessary measures with available resources, or that the State promoted discriminatory measures. The Commission found no violations of the rights to life, health, dignity, equality, non-discrimination, information, or effective remedy.

Outcome

Communication dismissed on the merits after being declared admissible

Facts

Five women in Nigeria suffered lifelong injuries or death from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth, including obstetric fistulas and haemorrhage. Nigeria has the second highest number of maternal deaths globally, with over 40,000 women dying annually from pregnancy-related causes. The complainants alleged that most deaths were preventable and resulted from inadequate access to maternal health care services. They claimed Nigeria's health expenditure of USD 72 per capita was among the world's lowest, and budget allocation to health was 5-6%, far below the 15% commitment in the 2001 Abuja Declaration. Financial barriers including user fees and compulsory blood donation by spouses prevented poor and rural women from accessing care. Women were detained in health facilities for inability to pay medical bills and subjected to abuse and ill-treatment by health care providers. The conflict with Boko Haram in northern Nigeria exacerbated the situation, with hundreds of women abducted, raped, and denied access to adequate maternal health care.

Issues

  1. Whether the failure of Nigeria to reduce preventable maternal deaths and injuries constitutes a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter and Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol.
  2. Whether Nigeria's low per capita spending on health and failure to allocate 15% of its budget to health constitutes a violation of the right to health under Article 16 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol.
  3. Whether the denial of maternal health care services, detention of women in health facilities for inability to pay, and abuse by health care providers constitute violations of the right to dignity and the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 5 of the African Charter.
  4. Whether financial barriers to maternal health care, compulsory blood donation requirements, and detention for non-payment constitute discrimination against women in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter and Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol.
  5. Whether the lack of access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information violates the right to information under Article 9 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol.
  6. Whether the denial of quality maternal health services constitutes a violation of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.
  7. Whether the absence of judicial or administrative remedies for victims of maternal mortality and morbidity violates the right to an effective remedy under Article 7 of the African Charter.
  8. Whether local remedies must be exhausted where there is a large number of victims, serious and massive violations, and victims have low income and cannot access legal aid.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
  • Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 16 of the African Charter and Articles 2, 4 and 14(1)(b)(c)(f) and (2)(a) and (c) of the Maputo Protocol declared not to have been violated.
  • The right to an effective remedy and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress declared not to have been violated.
  • All claims for compensation dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception for Large Number of Victims
Local remedies need not be exhausted where the large number of victims makes remedies neither practicable nor desirable, and where it would be impossible to identify all victims of massive violations.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception for Low-Income Victims
Local remedies need not be exhausted where victims have low levels of income and cannot afford legal aid, and therefore have no real possibility of obtaining redress at the domestic level.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Barriers to Litigation
Where a constitution makes economic, social and cultural rights immune from litigation, this impacts the prospect of success of cases at the national level and meets the requirements for derogation from exhausting local remedies.
Right to Life — Maternal Mortality — Burden of Proof
To establish a violation of the right to life based on maternal mortality, complainants must demonstrate that the State failed to take necessary measures to prevent such deaths despite having sufficient resources, or that the State promoted measures that undermine access to health care with discriminatory effects.
Right to Health — Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — Progressive Realisation
Economic, social and cultural rights are programmatic rights whose implementation depends on the means available to each State. The obligation of States is to take positive and selective steps, while making full use of available resources, towards the full realisation of the right to health without discrimination.
Interpretation of Instruments — Maputo Protocol — Competence of African Commission
The African Commission has competence to interpret the Maputo Protocol as it forms an integral part of the African Charter by virtue of being a protocol to the Charter and supplementing its provisions, particularly Article 18(3) on elimination of discrimination against women.
Torture and Ill-Treatment — Omissions by Health Service Providers
Omissions by health service providers do not constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment unless it is proven that the acts had a specific objective of humiliating the victims or inducing them to act against their will or conscience, and created feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority such as to humiliate, debase or break their physical or moral resistance.

Legislation cited (22)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • 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 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 45(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 62
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 66
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 2
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 4
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 5
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 10
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 14
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) Article 26
  • Nigerian Constitution Section 6(6)(c)
  • Nigerian Constitution Section 33(1)
  • National Health Act Section 20
  • Oil Pipelines Act 2004

Cases cited (22)

  • Amnesty International and Others v Sudan (Communication 48/90, 50/91, 89/93)
  • African Institute for Human Rights and Development v Guinea (Communication 249/02)
  • Malawi Africa Association and Others v Mauritania (Communication 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97-196/97-210/98)
  • Sudan Human Rights Organisation v Sudan (Communication 279/03-296/05)
  • Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Nigeria (Communication 338/07)
  • Purohit and Moore v The Gambia (Communication 241/01)
  • Tsatu Tsikata v Ghana (Communication 322/2006)
  • Open Society Justice Initiative v Cote d'Ivoire (Communication 318/06)
  • Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Nigeria (Communication 300/05)
  • Social and Economic Rights Action Center v Nigeria (Communication 155/96)
  • Forum of Conscience v Sierra Leone (Communication 223/98)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Application 006/2012)
  • Centre for Minority Rights Development v Kenya (Communication 276/03)
  • Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights v Egypt (Communication 323/06)
  • Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia (Communication 147/95-149/96)
  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Zimbabwe (Communication 29/04)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 032/2015)
  • Spilg and Mack v Botswana (Communication 277/03)
  • Working Group on Strategic Court Cases v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 259/2002)
  • Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence v Cameroon (Communication 272/03)
  • World Organisation Against Torture v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 325/06)
  • Ireland v United Kingdom (Application No. 5310/71)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Community Law Centre and Others (on behalf on the Five Victims) v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Communication 564 of 2015) [2024] ACHPR 1 (23 May 2024)
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.