(a) The Draft Agenda for the 27th Ordinary Session and the letter of invitation to the said session;
(b) A copy of the complaint that was attached to the Secretariat's Note;
(c) A copy of the Report of the 26th Ordinary Session.
18. Further to the above request, the Secretariat of the Commission on 8th March 2000, forwarded all the
documents requested (except the Report of the 26th Ordinary Session), together with a copy of the
summary and status of all communications filed against Nigeria which were pending before the
Commission during the 26th Ordinary Session, a copy each of communications 218/98, 224/98 and 225/98
as submitted by their authors, and a copy of the written response of Media Rights Agenda on the merits of
communication 224/98.
19. At its 27th Ordinary Session held in Algiers, Algeria, the Commission found a violation of Article 7 of the
Charter and requested the Government of Nigeria to compensate the victims accordingly.
20. At its 28th Ordinary Session held in Cotonou, Benin, the rapporteur noted that although a decision had
been taken at the 27th Ordinary Session, some amendments were necessary in order to reflect the peculiar
nature of trials of soldiers by military tribunals. He undertook to continue working on the case and the
matter was deferred to the 29th Ordinary Session.
Law
Admissibility
21. At its 25th Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission requested the Secretariat to
give an opinion on the effect of Article 56(7) of the Charter in view of the changing political and
constitutional situation in Nigeria. Relying on the case law of the Commission, the Secretariat submitted
that based on the well established principle of international law, a new government inherits its
predecessor's obligations, including responsibility for the previous government's misdeeds (see
communication Krishna Achutan and Amnesty International/Malawi, 62/92[sic], 68/92 and 78/92).
22. The Commission has always dealt with communications by deciding upon the facts alleged at the time
of submission of the communication (see communications 27/89, 46/91 [49/91] and 99/93). Therefore,
even if the situation has improved, such as leading to the release of the detainees, repealing of the
offensive laws and tackling of impunity, the position still remains that the responsibility of the present
government of Nigeria would still be engaged for acts of human rights violations which were perpetrated by
its predecessors.
23. It was noted that although Nigeria was under a democratically elected government, Section 6(6)(d) of
the Constitution provides that no legal action can be brought to challenge 'any existing law made on or after
15th January 1966 for determining any issue or question as to the competence of any authority or person to
make any such law'. This means that there is no recourse within the Nigerian legal system for challenging
the legality of any unjust laws.
For the above reasons, and also for the fact that, as alleged, there were no avenues for exhausting local
remedies, the Commission declared the communication admissible.
Merits
24. In interpreting and applying the Charter, the Commission relies on the growing body of legal precedents
established in its decisions over a period of nearly fifteen years. The Commission is also enjoined by the
Charter and by international human rights standards, which include decisions and general comments by the
UN treaty bodies (Article 60). It may also have regard to principles of law laid down by State Parties to the
Charter and African practices consistent with international human rights norms and standards (Article 61).
In this matter, the Charter is silent on its application to military courts or tribunals.
25. The issues brought before the Commission have to be judged in the environment of a military junta and
serving military officers accused of offences punishable in terms of military discipline in any jurisdiction.
This caution has to be applied especially as pertaining to serving military officers. The civilian accused is
part of the common conspiracy and as such it is reasonable that he be charged with his military co-accused
in the same judicial process1 . We are making this decision conscious of the fact that Africa continues to
have military regimes that are inclined to suspend the constitution, govern by decree and seek to oust the
application of international obligations. Such was the case in Nigeria under military strongman Sani
2