Download

Uganda Judgment

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Centre for Free Speech v Nigeria (Communication 206 of 1997) [1999] ACHPR 4 (15 November 1999)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Commission found that the arrest, detention, trial, and conviction of the journalists by a Special Military Tribunal, conducted in secret and without access to counsel of their choice, constituted violations of their rights to liberty, security of person, and fair trial under Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter. The inability to appeal due to decrees ousting the jurisdiction of regular courts rendered local remedies ineffective, justifying admissibility. The trial before a military tribunal presided over by serving military officers, including a member of the body confirming sentences, failed to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and fair hearing as required by Article 26. The government of Nigeria's failure to respond to the Commission's requests led the Commission to accept the applicant's uncontested facts. The Commission concluded that Nigeria violated Articles 6, 7(1)(a), (c), and 26, and urged the government to release the journalists.

Court disposition

violation_found

Orders

  • The government of Nigeria is urged to order the release of the four journalists.

02

Material facts

Parties

Center for Free Speech

Applicant

Federal Republic of Nigeria

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Human Rights Communication / Merits Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant alleged that four journalists were unlawfully arrested, detained, tried, and convicted by a Special Military Tribunal for reporting on an alleged coup attempt. The trial was held in secret, the journalists were denied access to counsel of their choice, and sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant argued that the journalists could not appeal due to decrees ousting the jurisdiction of regular courts, violating Articles 6, 7, and 26 of the African Charter and Principle 5 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
Respondent
The government of Nigeria did not respond to repeated requests from the Commission for its reaction to the communication and failed to contest the allegations made by the applicant.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 6, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

    Right to liberty and security of person prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention.

  2. 02

    Article 7(1)(a), (c), African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

    Right to fair trial includes access to counsel of choice and right to appeal to competent national organs.

  3. 03

    Principle 5, UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

    Trials must be conducted by ordinary courts using established legal procedures; military tribunals should not displace ordinary courts.

  4. 04

    Article 26, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

    States must guarantee the independence of courts and promote institutions for protection of rights.

  5. 05

    ACHPR Communications Nos. 59/91, 60/91, 64/91, 87/93, 101/93

    Where government fails to contest allegations after repeated notification, the Commission may treat the applicant's facts as established.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Commission found that the arrest, detention, trial, and conviction of the journalists by a Special Military Tribunal, conducted in secret and without access to counsel of their choice, constituted violations of their rights to liberty, security of person, and fair trial under Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter. The inability to appeal due to decrees ousting the jurisdiction of regular courts rendered local remedies ineffective, justifying admissibility. The trial before a military tribunal presided over by serving military officers, including a member of the body confirming sentences, failed to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and fair hearing as required by Article 26. The government of Nigeria's failure to respond to the Commission's requests led the Commission to accept the applicant's uncontested facts. The Commission concluded that Nigeria violated Articles 6, 7(1)(a), (c), and 26, and urged the government to release the journalists.

Obiter and limits

  • The Commission reiterates that denial of access to counsel of choice is a contravention of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter.
  • Military tribunals should not be used to displace the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, as this undermines the guarantees of fair trial and judicial independence.
  • Where a government fails to respond to repeated requests for information, the Commission will decide on the facts provided by the complainant.

Court disposition

violation_found

  • The government of Nigeria is urged to order the release of the four journalists.

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

[1999] ACHPR 4

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Twenty-Sixth Ordinary Session 1-15 November 1999

APPLICANT v.

RESPONDENT

NIGERIA

BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Prof. E. V. O. Dankwa VICE CHAIRPERSON: Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga COMMISSIONERS: Professor Isaac Nguema, Dr. Ibrahim Ali Badawi El-Sheikh, Dr. Hatem Ben Salem, Mr. Kamel Rezag-Bara, Dr. Nyameko Barney Pityana, Mr. Andrew Ranganayi Chigovera, Mrs. Florence Butegwa, Mrs. Vera Mlangazuwa Chirwa, Mrs. Jainaba Johm

Citation: Ctr. For Free Speech v. Nig., Comm. 206/97, 13th ACHPR AAR Annex V (1999-2000) Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples' Rights Extracted from the Commission's Activity Reports 1994- 2001, at 273 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Vol. 2, at 165 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2009); (2000) AHRLR 250 (ACHPR 1999)

RAPPORTEUR

23rd Session: Commissioner Dankwa

24th Session: Commissioner Dankwa

25th Session: Commissioner Dankwa

26th Session: Commissioner Dankwa

SUMMARY OF FACTS

- 1. The complainant alleges the unlawful arrest, detention, trial and conviction of four Nigerian journalists, by a Military Tribunal presided over by one Patrick Aziza. - 2. The journalists were convicted for reporting stories on the alleged 1995 coup attempt in their various newspapers and magazines. The journalists are: Mr. George Mba of TELL magazine, Mr. Kunle Ajibade of THE NEWS magazine, Mr. Ben Charles Obi of CLASSIQUE Magazine and Mrs. Chris Anyanwu of TSM Magazine. - 3. The journalists were tried in secret and were not allowed access to counsel of their choice. - 4. The journalists were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. - 5. The convicted journalists could not appeal against their sentences because of the various Decrees promulgated by the Military Regime that ousts the jurisdiction of regular courts from hearing appeals on cases decided by a Military Tribunal.

COMPLAINT

The complainant asserts that the following Articles of the African Charter have been violated:

Articles 6, 7 and 24 and Principle 5 of the U. N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

PROCEDURE

- 6. The communication is dated 14 July 1997 and the Secretariat acknowledged receipt on 23 September 1997. - 7. Correspondences were exchanged between the Secretariat and the parties for additional information and to keep the latter informed of the procedures.

LAW

ADMISSIBILITY

- 8. For a communication submitted under Article 55 of the Charter to be declared admissible, it must satisfy all the conditions stipulated under Article 56 of the Charter. Such conditions must be assessed based on the circumstances of each particular case. In this case, the communication prima facie is in accordance with these requirements. The only issue that might be raised is with regard to the exhaustion of local remedies as provided for under Article 56(5) of the Charter. - 9. Article 56(5) states:

"Communications relating to the human and peoples' rights referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission, shall be considered if they:

… are sent after exhausting local remedies if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged."

10. The jurisdiction of the courts are ousted by Treason and Treasonable Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree. Applying the decisions of the Commission in communication 60/91, which concerned the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal, communication 87/93 on the Civil Disturbances Tribunal, communication 101/92 on the Legal Practitioners Decree and communication 129/94 relating to the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree and the Political Parties (Dissolution), the Commission finds that local remedies in the instant communication were nonexistent or ineffective.

For the above reasons, the Commission declared the communication admissible.

MERITS:

11. The complainant alleges the illegal arrest and detention of the Journalists as being in violation of their right to liberty and security of person as provided for in Article 6 of the Charter.

Article 6 of the Charter provides:

"Every individual shall have the right to liberty and the security of person… No One may be deprived of his freedom except for the reasons and conditions laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained."

12. The complainant also alleges violation of Article 7 of the Charter and Principle 5 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in that the Journalists were tried in secret, were denied access to counsel of their choice and later sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Further, that the convicted Journalists could not appeal against their sentences because of the various Decrees promulgated by the Military government that ousts the jurisdiction of the regular courts from hearing such cases.

Article 7 (1) of the Charter provides:

"Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard.

This comprises: (a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force;"

Principle 5 of the UN Basic Principles stipulates:

"Everyone shall have the right to be tried by the ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals."

13. It is alleged that the convicted persons were not allowed access to their lawyers, neither were they given the opportunity to be represented and defended by lawyers of their own choice at the trial. Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter provides:

"Every individual shall have the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice."

14. In its Resolution on the Right to Recourse Procedure and Fair Trial, the Commission in reenforcing this right observed in paragraph 2 (e) (i) thus:

"In the determination of charges against individuals, the individual shall be entitled in particular to:

(i) … communicate in confidence with counsel of their choice

The denial of this right therefore is in contravention of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter."

15. The issue of the arraignment and trial of the Journalists must also be addressed here. The complainant alleges that the Journalists were arraigned, tried and convicted by a Special Military Tribunal, presided over by a serving military officer and whose membership also included some serving military officers. This is in violation of the provisions of Article 7 of the Charter and Principle 5 of the UN Basic Principles.

16. It could not be said that the trial and conviction of the four Journalists by a Special Military tribunal presided over by a serving military officer who is also a member of the PRC, the body empowered to confirm the sentence, took place under conditions which genuinely afforded the full guarantees of fair hearing as provided for in article 7 of the Charter. The above act is also in contravention of Article 26 of the Charter.

Article 26 of the Charter states:

"State parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter."

17. Unfortunately, the government of Nigeria has not responded to the several requests from the Commission for the former's reaction to the communication. The African Commission on several previous decisions has set out the principle that where allegations of human rights violations go uncontested by the government concerned, particularly after repeated notifications or request for information on the case, the Commission must decide on the facts provided by the complainant and treat those facts as given (see communications Nos. 59/91, 60/91, 64/91, 87/93 and 101/93).

18. In the circumstances, the Commission finds itself compelled to adopt the position that the facts alleged by the complainant are true.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COMMISSION concludes that the violations of Articles 6 and 7 (1)(a) and (c ) and 26 occurred in this case;

urges the government of Nigeria to order for the release of the four Journalists.

Done in Kigali, Rwanda on 15 November 1999.

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.

ACHPR Communication 60/91

Case cited

ACHPR Communication 87/93

Case cited

ACHPR Communication 101/92

Case cited

ACHPR Communication 129/94

Case cited

ACHPR Communications Nos. 59/91, 60/91, 64/91, 87/93, 101/93

Case cited

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Articles 6, 7, 26

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Principle 5

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Treason and Treasonable Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree

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.