and merits of the complaint which has to be determined only after the parties
have been given the opportunity to present their case, with full guarantees
of fair trial.”
53.The Applicant in this instant case having alleged violation of his human rights
to fair hearing and impartial trial, the dignity of his person, and to work
contrary to the rights guaranteed for individuals under the African Charter;
and the subject matter of human rights falls within the jurisdiction of this
Court and based on the Court’s jurisprudence as espoused thus far, the Court
holds that it has the material jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. The
Respondents’ objection under this head fails.
54.Again, in their submissions objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court, the
Respondents argued that the 2nd Respondent being an individual cannot be
sued before the Community Court of Justice of ECOWAS.
55.When a similar issue was presented in the case of KHADIJATU BANGURA v.
SIERRA LEONE (2016) CCJ/JUD/17/16 (UNREPORTED) AT PAGE 11, the
Court held that “… (it) has always held that human rights protection is the
exclusive preserve of States, and the Court has thus expressed this position in
numerous decisions it had to make, including the one delivered on 8th
November, 2010 in MAMADOU TANGJA V. REPUBLIC OF NIGER (2010)
CCJELR 109, where it declared that, it is a general principle that procedures
of human rights violation are brought against States, and not individuals.
Indeed, that the obligation to respect and protect human rights lies on States”.
56.Further, in the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIO
ECONOMIC RIGHTS & ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (SERAP) v. THE
23