Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 143 of 1995; Communication 150 of 1996)
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 Nigerian decrees suspending habeas corpus for state security detainees and containing ouster clauses removing judicial review violate the African Charter. The suspension of habeas corpus, combined with widespread detention without trial in poor conditions and denial of access to lawyers and family, violates Articles 5, 6, 7(1)(a), (c) and (d), 18, and 26. Ouster clauses preventing courts from reviewing executive detention undermine judicial independence. The government was requested to bring its laws into conformity with the Charter.
Outcome
Communications upheld; violations of the African Charter established; government requested to amend legislation
Facts
The Nigerian government enacted Decree No. 2 of 1984 permitting detention without trial for renewable three-month periods for persons endangering state security. Decree No. 14 of 1994 amended this to prohibit courts from issuing writs of habeas corpus or any prerogative orders for persons detained under Decree No. 2. Both decrees contained ouster clauses removing judicial review. Several human rights activists and opposition politicians, including Abdul Oroh, Chima Ubani, Tunji Abajom, Frank Kokori, Fred Eno, Wale Osun, and Osagie Obayunwana, were detained without charge under these decrees. Detainees were held in poor conditions, sometimes underground and incommunicado, denied access to medical care, lawyers, and family, and allegedly subjected to torture. Chief Abiola was detained despite a Court of Appeal order granting bail. The government acknowledged the decrees remained on the statute books but stated they applied only during 1993-1995 political instability and would become superfluous with democratisation.
Issues
- Whether Nigerian decrees suspending the right to habeas corpus for persons detained under state security legislation violate Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter.
- Whether ouster clauses removing matters from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts violate Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter.
- Whether detention without charge or trial violates Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter.
- Whether conditions of detention and denial of access to lawyers and family violate Articles 5, 7, and 18 of the African Charter.
- Whether failure to comply with a court order for release on bail violates Article 26 of the African Charter.
Orders
- Communications declared admissible.
- Violations of Articles 5, 6, 7(1)(a), (c) and (d), 18 and 26 of the African Charter found.
- Government of Nigeria requested to bring its laws into conformity with the Charter.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- 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)(c)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56.5
- State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No. 2 of 1984 (Nigeria)
- State Security (Detention of Persons) Amended Decree No. 14 of 1994 (Nigeria)
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Chapter IV
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria s.219
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria s.259
Cases cited (3)
- ACHPR 129/94
- communications 59/91, 60/91, 64/92, 68/92, 78/92, 87/93 and 101/93
- communications 60/91, 87/93 and 129/94
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.