Wakilii

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87 of 1993)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [1995] ACHPR 6 · 1995 Petition Granted — Violations Declared 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 fair trial rights under the African Charter
Decision
Commission found violations and recommended that Nigeria release the seven men sentenced to death

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 found Nigeria violated Articles 7(1)(a), (c), and (d) of the African Charter. A law barring judicial appeal from special tribunals violates the right to appeal to competent national organs. Forced withdrawal of defense counsel through harassment violates the right to counsel. Tribunals composed largely of executive branch members lack impartiality regardless of individual character. Discretionary non-judicial remedies need not be exhausted.

Outcome

Commission found violations and recommended that Nigeria release the seven men sentenced to death

Facts

Seven men were sentenced to death by a special tribunal in Nigeria under the Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Decree No. 2 of 1987. The decree provided no judicial appeal and prohibited courts from reviewing tribunal operations. During trial, defense counsel were harassed and intimidated, forcing their withdrawal. The tribunal proceeded without defense counsel and convicted the accused of culpable homicide, unlawful assembly, and breach of peace, sentencing them to death. The tribunal comprised one judge and four armed forces members. The only available remedy was a discretionary confirmation power vested in the Armed Forces Ruling Council.

Issues

  1. Whether the prohibition on judicial review and appeal of special tribunal decisions violates the right to appeal to competent national organs under Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter.
  2. Whether the harassment and forced withdrawal of defense counsel violated the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
  3. Whether special tribunals composed primarily of armed forces and police members violate the right to trial by an impartial tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter.
  4. Whether local remedies requiring exhaustion exist where the only remedy is an extraordinary discretionary power of a non-judicial nature.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.
  • Violation of Article 7(1)(a), (c), and (d) of the African Charter declared.
  • Government of Nigeria recommended to free the complainants.
  • File to be brought to Nigeria for a planned mission to verify that violations have been repaired.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Fair Trial — Right to Appeal — Prohibition of Judicial Review
A law that prohibits judicial review of special tribunal decisions and provides no avenue of appeal to competent national organs in criminal cases bearing on rights to life and liberty violates Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Human Rights — Fair Trial — Right to Counsel — Harassment and Forced Withdrawal
Where defense counsel are harassed and intimidated to the point of forced withdrawal and a tribunal proceeds to judgment and sentence without counsel, the accused are deprived of their right to defense and the right to be defended by counsel of their choice under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
Human Rights — Fair Trial — Impartial Tribunal — Composition by Executive Branch Members
A tribunal composed largely of persons belonging to the executive branch of government, the same branch that passed the law creating the tribunal, violates the right to trial by an impartial tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter, regardless of the individual character of tribunal members, as its composition alone creates an appearance of lack of impartiality.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Non-Judicial Discretionary Remedies
A discretionary, extraordinary remedy of a non-judicial nature, the object of which is to obtain a favour rather than vindicate a right, is not a remedy that requires exhaustion under Article 56(5) of the African Charter where the source does not operate impartially and has no obligation to decide according to legal principles.

Legislation cited (9)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • 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 56(5)
  • Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Decree No. 2 of 1987 (Nigeria)
  • Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Act Part IV Section 8(1) (Nigeria)
  • Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Act Part II Section 2(2) (Nigeria)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87 of 1993) [1995] ACHPR 6 (22 March 1995)
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.