“1. Communication 60/91 was brought by the Constitutional Rights Project, a Nigerian NGO, on behalf of Wahab Akamu, Gbolahan Adega and others sentenced to death under the Robbery and Firearms (Special provision) Decree No. 5 of 1984. This decree creates special tribunals, composed of one serving or retired judge, one member of the armed forces and one member of the police force. The decree does not provide for any judicial appeal of sentences. Sentences are subject to confirmation or disallowance by the Governor of a state. “2. Wahab Akamu was convicted and sentenced to death on August 12th 1991, and Gbolahan Ageaga was convicted and sentenced on August 14th 1991. Both were sentenced by Robbery and Firearms Tribunal 1, Lagos. “3. The complaint alleges that both were tortured to extract confessions while they were in custody. Argument “4. The communication argues that the prohibition on judicial review of the special tribunals and lack of judicial appeals for judgments of these tribunals violates the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating fundamental rights, guaranteed by Article 7, paragraph 1(a) of the African Charter. “5. The communication also argues that the practice of setting up special tribunals, composed of members of the armed forces and police in addition to judges, violates the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal guaranteed by Article 7, paragraph 1(d). The Law: Admissibility “6. The case was declared admissible at the 14th Session of the Commission on the following grounds: “7. The case raises the question of whether the remedies available are of a nature that requires exhaustion. “8. The Act complained of in communication No. 60/91 is The Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Chapter 398, in which Section 11, paragraph 4 provides: No appeal shall lie from a decision of a tribunal constituted under this Act or from any confirmation or dismissal of such decision by the Governor. “9. The Robbery and Firearms Act entitles the Governor to confirm or disallow the conviction of the Special Tribunal. “10. This power is to be described as discretionary extraordinary remedy of a no judicial nature. The object of the remedy is to obtain a favour and not to vindicate Page | 18