....CONTINUE READING THE ARTICLE FROM THE SOURCE
The ECOWAS Court of Justice has ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to pay ₦5 million in compensation to Oluwatimilehin Adebayo for the violation of his right to freedom from torture.
In its judgment, delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki and sent to our correspondent on Thursday, the court directed the Nigerian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into the torture Adebayo endured and prosecute those responsible.
Adebayo, in a suit marked ECW/CCJ/APP/47/23, accused police officers in Ogun State of subjecting him to severe physical abuse, including beating him with the handle of an axe and tying his limbs with chains to a pole. He said the ordeal left him with physical injuries, including trauma to his scrotum, and caused significant psychological distress.
The Nigerian government challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case was filed outside the three-year limitation period stipulated under the court’s rules and that the matter was either pending or already decided in a Nigerian court.
However, the ECOWAS Court dismissed the preliminary objections, asserting its jurisdiction to hear human rights cases. Justice Atoki clarified, “The three-year limitation period under Article 9(3)(b) of the Court’s Protocol does not apply to cases of human rights violations.”
The court found that the actions of the police officers amounted to torture, in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory.
It added, “The Court noted that the torture was intentional and aimed at coercing Mr. Adebayo into signing a pre-written statement. Consequently, it ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to pay ₦5 million in compensation to the Applicant for the violation of his right to freedom from torture.
“It also ordered Nigeria to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into the torture and prosecute those responsible.
“However, the Court dismissed the claim that the applicant’s right to a remedy had been violated, noting that there was no evidence the Applicant had formally reported the abuse to relevant authorities.”
