ECOWAS COURT DISMISSES LAWYERS ALERT’S VAGRANCY LAW CHALLENGE AGAINST NIGERIA OVER LACK OF IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
Read Time:2 Minute, 0 Second
By Aishat Momoh. O.
In a landmark ruling, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has dismissed a suit filed by the Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women, and Indigent Persons, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of identifiable victims.
The case, marked Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/25/21, is notable for being the Court’s first judgment delivered under its 2020 Practice Direction on Electronic Case Management and Virtual Hearings—an initiative aimed at strengthening judicial efficiency across the region.
Lawyers Alert, a prominent Nigerian human rights non-profit based in Makurdi and Abuja, had asked the Court to declare that certain provisions of Nigeria’s Penal Code (1963) and Criminal Code (1961)—including Sections 401, 405(1)(c), 405, 246, 224, and 250—constitute vagrancy laws that facilitate the arbitrary arrest and detention of vulnerable populations such as sex workers.
The organization argued that these laws violate several provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18, and 19.
However, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justices Ricardo Goncalves, Sengu M. Koroma, and Edward Amoako Asante, the ECOWAS Court affirmed that while it holds jurisdiction to hear human rights violation claims under Article 9(4) of its Protocol, such claims must be linked to actual, documented victims.
The Court held that the applicant’s submissions amounted to a “generalized and theoretical challenge” to national legislation without proof of specific individuals affected by the laws in question. It ruled that such abstract legal reviews fall outside its competence, which is limited to resolving concrete cases of human rights abuse.
While the applicant presented statistical data and general reports on petty offences in Nigeria during 2022 and 2023, the Court noted that these lacked the required evidentiary support—such as affidavits, judicial records, or media documentation—to demonstrate real violations involving identifiable persons.
The Court cited earlier decisions, including the Hissène Habré case, to reiterate that it is not empowered to issue advisory opinions on domestic laws absent substantiated claims of human rights infringements.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety and directed both parties to bear their own legal costs. The ruling reinforces the ECOWAS Court’s insistence on strict evidentiary standards and jurisdictional boundaries in the adjudication of human rights cases.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0