Download

Uganda Judgment

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Aigbe v Nigeria (Communication 252 of 2002) [2003] ACHPR 38 (29 May 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The African Commission found that the complainant failed to demonstrate exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Despite alleging attempts to seek redress before various authorities, the applicant did not provide evidence of proceedings before domestic courts or submit arguments on admissibility when requested. The Commission concluded that the procedural requirement of exhausting local remedies had not been met, rendering the communication inadmissible.

Court disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

  • The communication is declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies.

02

Material facts

Parties

Stephen O. Aigbe

Applicant

Nigeria

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Communication / Admissibility

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant alleges arbitrary detention, mistreatment, and ongoing threats by the Nigerian Army, including failure to investigate complaints, denial of pay and leave, and obstruction of access to justice. He claims to have sought redress before several authorities but was denied audience and alleges bribery prevented his case from being heard. He requests urgent intervention, investigation, restoration of contact with his children, and financial assistance.
Respondent
No formal respondent submissions are recorded in the decision. The Commission notes the absence of evidence that the applicant pursued proceedings before domestic courts or provided submissions on admissibility, particularly regarding exhaustion of local remedies.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

    A communication must be introduced after exhaustion of local remedies unless such remedies are unduly prolonged.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The African Commission found that the complainant failed to demonstrate exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Despite alleging attempts to seek redress before various authorities, the applicant did not provide evidence of proceedings before domestic courts or submit arguments on admissibility when requested. The Commission concluded that the procedural requirement of exhausting local remedies had not been met, rendering the communication inadmissible.

Court disposition

communication declared inadmissible

  • The communication is declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies.

Source and reliance status

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Judgment

[2003] ACHPR 38

15-29 May 2003 Communication No. 252/2002

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Thirty-Third Ordinary Session 15-29 May 2003

STEPHEN O. AIGBE

v.

NIGERIA

DECISION

BEFORE: CHAIRPERSON: Kamel Rezag-Bara VICE CHAIRPERSON: Jainaba Johm COMMISSIONERS: A. Badawi El Sheikh, Andrew R. Chigovera, Vera M. Chirwa, Emmanuel V. O. Dankwa, Yasser Sid Ahmed El-Hassan, Angela Melo, N. Barney Pityana, Hatem Ben Salem, Salimata Sawadogo

Citation: Aigbe v. Nig., Comm. 252/2002, 16th ACHPR AAR Annex VII (2002-2003)

RAPPORTEUR

32nd Session: Commissioner Johm

33rd Session: Commissioner Johm

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The complaint is filed by Stephen O. Aigbe, Master Warrant Officer (MWO) in the Nigerian Army.

2. The complaint details the mistreatment of the Complainant by the Nigerian Army. On 17 January 1996, the Complainant claims that he was removed from his office, arbitrarily detained, and accused of trying to overthrow General Abacha. On 12 April 1996 and 12 September 1996, he was arraigned on 12 counts of mutiny, a capital charge. He alleges that despite certain authorities' observations that the charges were false, he was not acquitted and the charges are still pending in a faulty trial process. The "rule of laws and court procedures" should have been "followed and exhausted" by officials before "a Judge takes far reaching decisions on any matter." According to the Complainant, the

proceedings violated the rule of law by not following armed forces regulations, which call for investigation and then court martial.

- 3. The Complainant also alleges several violations in relation to his terms of military service. He alleges that "several colleagues burgled his barracks" and despite his complaint to the relevant authority, his case was never investigated. In addition, he was denied living accommodations in the barracks for two years and was denied "the right to reach [his] pay point since July 1999" and to take his leave for six years. - 4. The Complainant also claims he faces death threats from "subordinate soldiers and the affluent Generals." He claims "harassment, intimidation, humiliation, embarrassment, discrimination, annihilation and threats to [his] life." In addition to death threats, he alleges daily occurrences of "other acts of organized open intimidation [by soldiers and generals]." - 5. He alleges that he has sought redress before several authorities, pursuant to Armed Forces Decree No. 105 of 1993, but certain officers were obstructing his access to justice. Despite his detailed submissions, the authorities have failed to provide adequate redress for his grievances and have bluntly refused to give him "audience at any level," violating military and constitutional procedure. He claims that bribery played a role in keeping his case from being heard. - 6. He further alleges that his family has been involved in occult practices and that members of the military, who are also involved, conspired against him. He notes that he wrote "so many petitions and protest letters to the Nigerian Army Council" and to the Oputa Panel.

COMPLAINT

- 7. The Complainant alleges violations of Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Charter. - 8. In his prayer for redress, the Complainant requests that the African Commission: - Intervene quickly to save him and his family from "the risk of assassination or extrajudicial killing or torture to death"; - Help restore contact with his children after "full and impartial investigations into all allegations of state agents in his separation [from his children], cult acts and practices for government by [his] children and [his] legal wife"; - Write to the Nigerian Attorney General and Minister of Justice to request an investigation into the mutiny allegations that he faces; - Call for an independent, impartial and public investigation into the burgling of his barracks; - Call for a probe into the "reallocation of [his] motorcycle loan to another soldier";

- Assist him in seeking asylum outside Nigeria since he faces continuous persecution there; and - Send him 10,000 Naira to enable him to eat.

PROCEDURE

9. The undated Complaint was received at the Secretariat on 14th June 2002 by mail.

10. On 24th July 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant informing him that the Complaint was registered and that it will be considered at the African Commission's 32nd Ordinary Session, which was scheduled to take place from 17th to 31st October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia.

- 11. At its 32nd Ordinary Session held from 17th to 23rd October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized thereof. - 12. On 4th November 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the parties to inform them of this decision and requested them to forward their submissions on admissibility before the 33rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission. - 13. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held from 15th to 29th May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African Commission considered this communication and declared it inadmissible.

LAW

ADMISSIBILITY

- 14. Article 56 (5) of the African Charter requires that "a communication be introduced subsequent to exhaustion of local remedies, if they exist, unless it is obvious to the Commission that the procedure for such recourse is abnormally prolonged". - 15. The Complainant had alleged that he sought redress before "several authorities." The African Commission has no indication in the file before it that there was any proceeding before the domestic courts on the matter. - 16. The Complainant has, despite repeated requests, however, not furnished his submissions on admissibility, especially on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, and in accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the African Commission, declares this communication inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies.

Done at the 33rd Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger, from 15th to 29th May 2003.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 56(5)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.