Wakilii

Legal Defence and Assistance Project v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Communication 425-12)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2014] ACHPR 7 · 2014 Communication Declared Admissible AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights concerning alleged violations of the African Charter arising from prolonged pre-trial detention without trial
Decision
Communication declared admissible and adjourned for consideration on the merits

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 admissible. It held that the requirement to exhaust local remedies must be dispensed with because section 35(7) of the Nigerian Constitution excludes persons arrested for capital offences from statutory timelines for trial, rendering effective domestic remedies unavailable. The Commission found that the three-year delay in issuing legal advice and hearing pending suits constituted undue prolongation of local remedies. The Communication was submitted within a reasonable period given the Complainant's continuous efforts to exhaust domestic avenues.

Outcome

Communication declared admissible and adjourned for consideration on the merits

Facts

On 29 August 2009, Mr. Abiodun Subaru was arrested at his home in Lagos by Nigerian Police officers in connection with a robbery investigation involving his neighbour Hope Ufot. During interrogation, he was allegedly tortured with a wooden baton and cutlass, and an engine block was placed on his back causing involuntary defecation. On 31 August 2009, he was brought before a Magistrate Court on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and remanded in Ikoyi Prison pending advice from the Directorate of Public Prosecution. As of the filing of the Communication in October 2012, more than three years after his arrest, he had not been arraigned or tried, and the DPP had not issued legal advice on his case. The Complainant filed two suits in the Federal High Court in October 2011 seeking enforcement of fundamental rights and challenging the constitutionality of section 35(7) of the Nigerian Constitution, but both suits remained pending due to adjournments.

Issues

  1. Whether the Communication is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) should be dispensed with on the grounds that local remedies are non-existent or unduly prolonged.
  3. Whether the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
  • Consideration of the Communication adjourned for parties to make submissions on the merits in accordance with Rule 107(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
  • Complainant requested to forward submissions on the merits within sixty (60) days of notification pursuant to Rule 108(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Non-Existence of Remedies
Where a constitutional provision excludes a category of persons from statutory protections that would otherwise provide a remedy, such as the right to be brought before a court within a reasonable time or released, local remedies are not available to that category of persons and the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter must be dispensed with.
Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Supremacy
Where a State's Constitution sanctions indeterminate detention and is supreme over other laws including ratified international treaties, and domestic courts have held that the Constitution prevails over the African Charter in cases of conflict, remedies that would otherwise exist under domestic law such as habeas corpus or mandamus are rendered unavailable and ineffective.
Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Undue Prolongation
A delay of more than three years in issuing legal advice on whether an accused person has a case to answer, combined with pending suits that have not been heard due to numerous adjournments, constitutes undue prolongation of local remedies sufficient to dispense with the exhaustion requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Admissibility of Communications — Reasonable Period for Submission
A Communication is submitted within a reasonable period under Article 56(6) of the African Charter where the Complainant has not been tardy but has continuously explored domestic avenues for redress, including making applications to prosecutorial authorities and filing suits in domestic courts, even if more than three years elapsed between the alleged violation and the filing of the Communication.
Admissibility of Communications — Definition of Local Remedies
Local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter are remedies of a judicial nature that may lead to the resolution of the complaint at the domestic level, and must be available, effective, and sufficient; a remedy is available if it can be pursued without impediment, effective if it offers a prospect of success, and sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.

Legislation cited (23)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • 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 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • 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)
  • Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 s.1(1)
  • Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 s.1(3)
  • Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 s.35(4)
  • Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 s.35(7)
  • Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 s.36(5)
  • Criminal Code Law of Lagos State
  • Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act

Cases cited (17)

  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (Communication 147/95)
  • Social and Economic Rights Action Centre v Nigeria (Communication 155/96)
  • General Sanni Abacha & 4 Others v Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt.660) 228
  • Vayola Sears & Anor v Attorney General of the Federation & Anor (Suit No FHC/L/CS/547/2003)
  • Mouvement Burkinabe des droits de l'Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso (Communication 204/97)
  • FIDH v Senegal (Communication 304/2005)
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication 275/2003)
  • RADDHO v Zambia (Communication 71/92)
  • Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299/05)
  • Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (Communication 221/98)
  • Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria (Communication 218/98)
  • Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (Communication 307/05)
  • Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim v Sudan (Communication 386/10)
  • Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan (Communication 310/05)
  • Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Angola (Communication 292/04)
  • Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rencontre Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de l'Homme au Sénégal and Association Malienne des Droits de l'Homme v Republic of Angola
  • Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others vs. Tanzania

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Legal Defence and Assistance Project v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Communication 425-12) [2014] ACHPR 7 (29 July 2014)
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.