The ECOWAS Court of Justice rejected on Wednesday a suit seeking the repeal of vagrancy laws criminalising destitute activities such as street wandering and begging from Nigerian laws.
In its judgement delivered in Lagos, a three-member panel ruled that the West African regional court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
|
|
The judges said the case, which a Nigerian civil society group filed in 2021, failed to identify victims whose rights were allegedly violated through the enforcement of the disputed laws, therefore depriving the court of jurisdiction to look into its merit.
According to a statement from the court, the panel comprised Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, who was the presiding judge, Sengu Mohamed Koroma, and Edward Amoako Asante – the judge rapporteur, who prepared the judgement.
|
|
|
|---|
The applicant, Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women and the Indigent dedicated to the protection of vulnerable groups, brought the action specifically to challenge the legality of certain provisions of Nigeria’s Penal Code of 1963 (applicable in Northern Nigeria) and the Criminal Code Act of 1916 (applicable in Southern Nigeria).
The contested provisions, often referred to as vagrancy laws, specifically Sections 405(1)(c) and (d), 405(2)(d) and (e), 406, and 407 of the Penal Code, and Sections 249 and 250 of the Criminal Code, were alleged to allow for the arbitrary arrest and detention of vulnerable individuals, including sex workers.
The applicant argued that the enforcement of the laws infringed on a range of fundamental rights guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, including the rights to dignity, liberty, fair trial, freedom of movement, and protection from discrimination.
It sought a declaration that the provisions were inconsistent with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations and requested an order compelling the government to repeal them.
Court’s findings
Delivering judgement on Wednesday, the panel of judges reiterated that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving actual violations of human rights within Member States.
However, it said such jurisdiction requires that the applicant identify real and identifiable victims whose rights have been allegedly infringed upon by the State.
The court noted that the applicant’s submissions were general in nature and did not include any supporting evidence, such as affidavits, court judgements, or verifiable reports, demonstrating specific instances where individuals had suffered rights violations due to the enforcement of the challenged legal provisions, the court said.
It further observed that the applicant’s human rights report covering 2022–2023 only cited statistical data without linking them to the specific laws in question or to identifiable victims.
ALSO READ: Minister urges National Assembly to pass law treating drug addiction as health issue
The court held that reviewing national laws in the absence of concrete evidence of their harmful application would amount to conducting an abstract review, which lies outside its jurisdiction.
It added that the applicant’s approach is consistent with its established jurisprudence, including its decisions in Karim Meissa Wade v. Republic of Senegal and Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative v. Nigeria.
Therefore, the court held that lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to the absence of identifiable victims of alleged human rights violations;
It dismissed the case but awarded no cost against the applicant.
