ECOWAS Court Declares Alleged Rights Violation Case Brought by Swiss Registered NGO and Another, Inadmissible

The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS on 13 May 2025 delivered its ruling in case no ECW/CCJ/APP/39/23 in relation to the preliminary objection raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, over allegation of violation of right to fair hearing within reasonable time brought by two NGOs. The Court declared the two NGOs lacked legal standing to initiate the matter and dismissed the application.

Case Background

The Applicants, The Incorporated Trustees of Prince and Princess Charles Offokaja Foundation Nigeria, and The Incorporated Trustees of Prince and Princess Charles Offokaja Foundation Switzerland, two Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)registered under the laws of Nigeria and Switzerland respectively, sought relief of the Court for continuous violation of their right to fair hearing within reasonable time in relation to a pending matter in the Nigerian judiciary lingering over thirty years in breach of Article 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

They averred that the matter centred on a loan application with a bank that was not disbursed due to incomplete documentation. However, the bank charged interest on the undisbursed loan amount, leased out and eventually sold the Applicants property intended as collateral. The Applicants claimed the lingering legal tussle comprising unenforceable judgment, withheld original documents of a property, non-scheduling of the case for hearing among others, has caused them financial loss, psychological distress, economic hardship and victimization of the widow and family of the deceased patriarch of the Offokaja family whose business entity applied for the loan.

The Applicants added that the patriarch, late Boniface Offokaja died without witnessing the resolution of the matter, leaving his family to continue the legal tussle for justice and that the prolonged delay in the judicial system of the Respondent State violated their right to fair hearing and effective remedy guaranteed under international legal instruments ratified by the Respondent State. They sought timely resolution of their matter and appropriate remedies.

The Respondent in its defence, raised preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the matter concerned with “banker-customer relationship”, a domestic dispute outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 9 of the Court’s Supplementary Protocol. It also argued that the Court was not an appellate court and lacked supervisory jurisdiction over decisions of national courts. Consequently, it asked the Court to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction and reasonable cause of action.

Court Findings

  • On jurisdiction, the Court noted that the case was premised on allegation of human rights violation under Article 7 of the ACHPR and in accordance with Article 9(4) of its Supplementary Protocol granting it jurisdiction over human rights matters.
  • On the Respondent’s objection that the Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court, it noted that ‘while it cannot sit on appeal over national court decisions, it can assess procedural human rights violations during domestic proceedings.’
  • On admissibility, the Court observed that the first Applicant though a recognised legal entity, failed to present documentary proof of relationship of alleged widow to the deceased and mandate of the alleged widow to establish its representative capacity. While the second Applicant being a registered entity in Switzerland, lacked proof of legal personality within ECOWAS region to initiate this matter. Consequently, both Applicants lacked legal standing to initiate this matter before the Court.

Court Decision

The Court:

  • Declared it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
  • Declared the case inadmissible and upheld the preliminary objection of the Respondent as it relates to the Court lacking jurisdiction to sit as an Appellate Court.
  • Dismissed all claims of the Applicants.

Judicial Panel

The ruling was delivered by a panel comprising:

  • Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur)
  • Hon. Justice Dupe Atoki (Member)
  • Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Member)