205/97 : Kazeem Aminu / Nigeria Summary of Facts 1. The Complainant alleges that Mr Ayodele Ameen (hereinafter referred to as “client”), a citizen of Nigeria was arbitrarily arrested, detained and tortured by Nigerian security officials on several occasions between 1995 and the date of the complaint. 2. The Complainant alleges that Mr Ayodele Ameen while in detention on one occasion was denied medical treatment and also subjected to inhuman treatment. 3. The Complainant alleges that his client is being sought after by the Nigerian security agents as a result of his political inclination which manifested itself in his role and involvement in agitation within th the Nigerian society for a validation of the previously annulled June 12 1994 elections by the Nigerian military government. 4. The Complainant alleges that his client has resorted to the courts for protection, but to no avail, by virtue of the provisions of Decree No. 2 of 1984 as amended. 5. As of the date of the communication, the Complainant alleges that his client is in hiding after escaping arrest at the Aminu Kano International Airport, Kano, on his way to Sudan. 6. The Complainant states that the matter is not pending in any court of law. Complaint 7. The Complainant asserts that the following articles of the African Charter have been violated: Articles 3 (2), 4, 6 and 10 (1). Procedure th 8. The communication is dated 11 July 1997, and was received at the Secretariat of the th Commission on 18 August 1997. rd 9. At its 23 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission decided to be seized of the matter and to notify the Government of Nigeria accordingly. Further information was requested regarding the current situation of the victim. th 10. At its 26 Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission declared the communication admissible and requested parties to submit their arguments on the merits of the case. Law Admissibility 11. The condition for the admissibility of this case was based on Article 56.5 of the Charter. This provision requires the exhaustion of local remedies before its consideration by the Commission. 12. The Complainant alleged that his client had resorted to the courts for protection, but to no avail, because of the operation of Decree No. 2 of 1984, as amended. This decree, it is alleged, contains an ouster clause, which, like most other decrees promulgated by the military government of Nigeria, excludes the courts from entertaining any matter or proceedings relating to it. 13. Relying on its case law, (see Communications 87/93, 101/93 and 129/94 the Commission held that local remedies would not only be ineffective, but are sure to yield no positive result. Secondly, the Commission noted that the Complainant's client is in hiding and still fears for his life. In this regard, the Commission calls in aid the statement of the representative of Nigeria in Communication 102/93 about the "chaotic" situation that had transpired after the annulment of the elections (see paragraph 57), the validation of which the Complainant's client is agitating for. Given the above situation and the constructive notice the Commission has about the prevailing situation under the Nigerian military