Wakilii

Desmond Nunugwo v Nigeria (Communication 653 of 2017)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] ACHPR 3 · 2020 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 human rights violations following death in custody
Decision
Communication declared 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 comply with Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter. The Commission held that the Complainants failed to exhaust domestic remedies, having not pursued available judicial remedies such as judicial review or human rights actions in Nigerian courts to compel investigation into the death in custody. The Commission found that without exhaustion of domestic remedies, the reasonable time period under Article 56(6) could not be computed.

Outcome

Communication declared inadmissible

Facts

Desmond Nunugwo, Chief Protocol Officer at Nigeria's Ministry of Defence, died on 9-10 June 2016 after being detained and interrogated by officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He had gone to his attorney's office for legal advice when EFCC operatives took him to their premises in Abuja at approximately 5 p.m. About six hours after detention, he was taken to an undisclosed hospital where he died shortly after. He was 51 years old and in perfect health before detention. The EFCC issued a press release stating Nunugwo had fraudulently obtained 91 million Nigerian Naira and promised an investigation into his death. His family, represented by his sisters residing in Germany, repeatedly contacted Nigerian authorities including the EFCC, police, Ministry of Justice, and Nigerian Embassy in Germany, but no effective investigation was conducted. No autopsy was performed, no officers were questioned, and no information was provided to the family. The Complainants submitted a Communication to the African Commission alleging violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Communication is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the Complainants exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
  3. Whether the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter.
  • Decision to be notified to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies — Requirement to Pursue Judicial Remedies
The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter applies only where such remedies are available, effective, and sufficient to redress the alleged violation, but complainants must pursue available judicial remedies including judicial review and human rights actions before approaching the Commission, even where the State has failed in its duty to investigate.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies — State's Duty to Investigate Not a Substitute
The fact that a State knew or should have known of a violation and failed in its duty to investigate is not sufficient to relieve complainants of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies; complainants must still pursue available judicial remedies to vindicate their rights through national judicial processes.
Admissibility — Purpose of Exhaustion Requirement — Primacy of National Courts
The purpose of requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies is to affirm the primacy of national courts, where remedies are faster attainable and more readily enforceable, with regional mechanisms fulfilling a complementary role where national judicial remedies are unavailable, ineffective, or insufficient.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time Period — Relationship to Exhaustion
The requirement under Article 56(6) that communications be submitted within a reasonable period is related to the principle of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5); where domestic remedies have not been exhausted, time has not begun to run such as to afford the complainant the opportunity to bring a complaint.

Legislation cited (17)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • 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
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(4)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • Federal High Court Rules 2009 Order 34
  • Fundamental Rights (Enforcement) Procedure Rules
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1990

Cases cited (11)

  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (Communication 147/95-149/96)
  • Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87/93)
  • Rencontre africaine pour la defence des droits de l'Homme v Zambia (Communication 71/92)
  • Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d'Ivoire (Communication 318/06)
  • Eyob B. Asemie v Kingdom of Lesotho (Communication 435/12)
  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Republic of Zimbabwe (Communication 284/03)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application 006/2012)
  • European Court of Human Rights in Fanziyeva v Russia
  • Shamayeva v. Russia
  • Slimani v. France
  • Muradyan

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Desmond Nunugwo v Nigeria (Communication 653 of 2017) [2020] ACHPR 3 (17 August 2020)
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.