Judgment of the Court
1. Parties and lawyers
The plaintiff is a human rights non-governmental organization registered under the laws of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. The first defendant is a member state of the Economic Community of West African
States. The second defendant is body set up by the first defendant to ensure the success of basic
education in the country. The applicant was represented by A. A. Mumuni and Sola Egbeyinkca. The first
defendant was represented by Yemi Pitan and Tolu Odupe, whilst the second defendant was represented
by John Gaul.
2. Subject-matter of the proceedings
The initiating application complains of violation of the human right to quality education, the right to human
dignity, the right of peoples to their wealth and natural resources, and the right of people to economic and
social development, guaranteed by Articles 1, 2, 17, 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights. (ACHPR)
Facts of the case
3. The genesis of this matter, according to the Applicant, is a report of investigations conducted into the
activities of the second defendant. Indeed the investigation centred on the mismanagement of funds
allocated for basic education in ten states of the Federation of Nigeria. This report was submitted to the
Presidency on April 13, 2006. The exact amount though has not been disclosed.
4. Besides, in October 2007, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) reported having more
than 488 million naira of funds looted from state offices and headquarters of the second defendant and was
still battling to recover another 3.1 billion naira looted by officials of the second defendant.
5. The Applicant contends that this is not an isolated case but an illustration of high level corruption and
theft of funds meant for primary education in Nigeria. The result is that Nigeria is unable to attain the level
of education that she deserves in that over five million Nigerian children have no access to primary
education, among others. The Applicant catalogued a number of factors that have negatively affected the
educational system of the county, including failure to train more teachers, non-availability of books and
other teaching materials etc etc.
6. The charge against the first defendant is that she has "contributed to these problems by failing to
seriously address all allegations of corruption at the highest levels of government and the levels of impunity
that facilitate corruption in Nigeria."
7. The result is that this has "contributed to the denial of the right of the peoples to freely dispose of their
natural wealth and resources, which is the backbone to the enjoyment of other economic and social rights
such as the right to education
SERAP contends that the destruction of Nigeria's natural resources through large scale corruption is the
sole cause of the problems denying the majority of the citizens access to quality education."
8. Pleas in law
The Applicant quoted the provisions of Article 4(g) of the 1993 Revised Treaty of ECOWAS, as well as
Articles 1, 2, 17, 21 and 22 of the ACHPR and submitted that the first defendant has violated the right to
education, the right of the people not to be dispossessed of their wealth and natural resources and the right
of the people to economic and social development.
9. Reliefs and Orders sought.
i. A declaration that every Nigerian child is entitled to free and compulsory education by virtue of Article 17
of the African Child's Rights Act, Section 15 of the Child's Rights Act 2003 and Section 2 of the Compulsory
Free and Universal Basic Education Act 2004.
ii. A declaration that the diversion of the sum of 3.5 billion naira from the UBE fund by certain public officers
in 10 states of the Federation of Nigeria is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates Articles 21 and 22 of
the ACHPR.
iii. An order directing the defendants to make adequate provisions for the compulsory and free education of
every child forthwith.
2