27. The Complainant claims further that the Customs and Police collude with smugglers to defraud Nigeria. This sufficiently explains why they want him dead. In fact, they openly mock the effectiveness of President Obasanjo’s approach to smuggling control. They claim that they “settle all the security chiefs, who they claim, settled the President too”. Settlement day, according to them is every Friday. This gives an impression that Mr President’s Anti-Corruption and Anti-Smuggling crusades constitute a mere farce! Adding that those in Aso Rock patronise smugglers. 28. He notes further that the security and democracy of Nigeria are undoubtedly seriously undermined by smuggling, which in effect, constitutes an absurd infringement upon the socioeconomic and security rights of the peoples of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This constitutes an infringement on Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 29 of the African Charter. 29. He concluded by stating that in view of the strategic security and economic importance of Nigeria to Africa and the world, and the urgent need to avert an imminent state of anarchy in Nigeria, to be occasioned by a kind of impromptu anti-democratic chain of fission from aggrieved stakeholders within the federation, the ACHPR should, without delay, “save our souls by taking urgent action, which would force President Obasanjo to prosecute all those indicted”. Respondent State’s submissions on admissibility th 30. The Respondent State submitted its arguments on admissibility at the 35 Ordinary Session of the [African] Commission held in Banjul, The Gambia. The State noted that the, author of the communication is seemingly in quest for attention, noting that the communication is an “episodic compilation of issues, lacking focus, depth and substantiation”. 31. The [Respondent] State argued that it would be misleading to attempt to dwell on the issues in the communication as such will convey a wrong and perhaps unintended signal to the author and others of his persuasion and inclination to unduly attempt taking advantage of situations, including the procedural provisions of well-meaning bodies like the African Commission. 32. The State noted that for a communication to pass the admissibility test under Article 56 of the African Charter it must meet the specific conditions, failure which the communication should be declared inadmissible. The [Respondent] State argues further that it is clear from the communication that the author has not exhausted local remedies as required underArticle 56.5. That the author merely asserts without evidence that he has availed himself of all available remedies. 33. The [Respondent] State notes that the communication lacks evidence of the involvement of the legal institutions as there is no indication that the courts of appellate jurisdiction in Nigeria have been seized of the matter, adding that to come to equity, the author must be clean. The State also notes that the author fails to demonstrate whether the “so called” human rights matters have gone before the Nigeria National Human Rights Commission. The State noted further that the Independent Corruption Practices Commission (ICPC), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission were also not seized by the author, stating that the author should be encouraged to take the “right and adequate steps for intervention in Nigeria”. 34. The Respondent State argues that the author’s penchant to malign the Nigerian criminal justice system is a deliberate ploy to mislead the African Commission and take undue advantage of the procedures, noting that to say individuals are above the law is self-serving but totally unrealistic and unfounded. The [Respondent] State also argues that the communication is derogatory and insulting, noting that the [Respondent] State takes strong exception to the characterisation of the Nigerian public functionaries and institutions as immoral, duplicitous, inept and corrupt and provocative that the author would be uncharitable and discourteous to claim the President was bribed. 35. The Respondent State finally requested the African Commission not to waste its valuable time on the communication, that it is unworthy of the efforts nor does it justify the resources that is invested in determining which human rights are in contention. That the author fails to invoke any provision of the [African] Charter alleged to have been violated. The [Respondent] State submitted that the communication is seriously flawed and glaringly incompatible with the admissibility criteria in the African Charter. African Commission’s decision on admissibility

Select target paragraph3