ECOWAS Court Declines Jurisdiction in Case Challenging Nigeria’s Vagrancy Laws

Lagos, 14 May 2025 – The ECOWAS Court of Justice today delivered its judgment in the case ECW/CCJ/APP/25/21, Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women and the Indigent v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, declaring that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and accordingly dismissed the application.

Case Background

The Applicant, a Nigerian non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of vulnerable groups, brought an action before the Court challenging 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). These 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 these laws infringes 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. The organization sought a declaration that these provisions are inconsistent with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations and requested an order compelling the government to repeal them.

Findings of the Court

In its analysis, the Court emphasized that under Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving actual violations of human rights within Member States. However, 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 judgments, or verifiable reports, demonstrating specific instances where individuals had suffered rights violations due to the enforcement of the challenged legal provisions. The Court 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.

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. This position, the Court said, is consistent with its established jurisprudence, including its decisions in Karim Meissa Wade v. Republic of Senegal and Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative v. Nigeria.

Decision of the Court

Based on its findings, the Court held that:

  • It lacks jurisdiction to hear the case due to the absence of identifiable victims of alleged human rights violations;
  • The Application is therefore dismissed;
  • No order as to costs was made

Judicial Panel

The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising:

  • Hon. Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge)
  • Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Member)
  • Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Judge Rapporteur)