Previous 29 / 33 Next

Freedom of Expression in Africa, the Commission indicated that the information referred to in Article 9 of the African Charter is information "originating from" or held by public bodies, as well as information held by private bodies, which is necessary for the exercise or protection of a right= . 146. In this sense, the Commission agrees with the Complainants that the right to information is a gateway to all other human rights, including the right to health at issue in the case under review. Thus, as tge Commission stated in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS"v"Egypt, States have an obligation to provide information they hold "without the need to dert!dnstrate a direct interest in obtaining it or personal harm, except in the ~a$e'of legitimate restrictions'l.S 147. In the case under review, the Complainants mainly invoke the violation of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol, which refers to the right to information on sexual and reproductive health. More specifically, they allege a violation of Article 14 (1) f of the above mentioned Protocol which states that II States shall ensure respect for and promotion of the rights ofi women to health, including sexual and reproductive health. These rights include: .. .j) the 'right tofamily planning education II • 148. Under this right, States Parties are obliged to. provide complete and accurate information necessary for the' respect, protection and enjoyment of health, including contraceptive methods." Measures that States should take include training and upgrading health care providers and educators on methods of contraception, ensuring that information-on contraceptive methods is provided by any 'possible means, enabling health systems structures, educational institutions and' p~pgrammes and civil society organisations with the requisite training to provide .family planning education and information to those concerned, and ensuiingJhat information is disseminated in languages accessible to communities. 56 0 '<(, 1~ 149. In the present case, as already explained, it is evident from various reports that the maternal mortality rate in Nigeria is among the highest. More importantly, it is observed from the Complainants allegations that the likelihood of a woman dying as a result of pregnancy in Nigeria is high. However, the Complainants have not shown how the ignorance of Nigerian women about contraception has contributed to this risk and, more importantly, how the Respondent State has played a passive role in providing family planning education. In their submissions, the Complainants fail to establish a causal link between family planning education and the maternal mortali~J? ". I ON f1lJr"4~ ~I)" ._,.,\ ~,,-CRE'~... ~,.., Declaration on the Principles of Freedom of Expre ,:In in. para IV (2). I~ nca, 53 54 Communication 323/06- 251 55 General Comment Egyptian Initiative for Perso Rt ... 4. No.2 on Article 14.1(a), (b), (c) and ~ ~[1' African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights 56 General Comment No.2 on Article 14.1(a), (b), (c) and (f) a >t'h "'i"-7 ""~ CHP ..'O Res.62, 23 October 2002, i) ~ ts an\.~. ifERI ~T~ AU·UA rtt Y~ ~~ f ~ . ~ a) Iw:.~~~~ Egypt (2013) ACHPR para (j (e) of the Protocol to the ra 28. ) and (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, para 28. 28

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Maputo Protocol
Right to Health
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that thousands of Nigerian women have lost their lives because the Respondent State has failed to provide adequate access to maternal health care services. They emphasize that these deaths were preventable, and they note that the Respondent State's per capita health expenditure is among the lowest in the world. They also emphasize that, since only women can get pregnant, the failure to provide quality maternal care services is discriminatory, as it is a unique and important element of womens' health. The complainants also note the inter-sectional nature of discrimination in maternal health services, as poor women often have even less access to quality care services. The Commission found no violation of Article 4 as they state that it was not demonstrated that the Respondent State had sufficient resources to prevent maternal deaths, or that it had failed to take steps to improve the right to maternal health. The Commission found no violation of Article 16 because they state that the highest attainable standard of health is dependent on the economic capacity of the state. They further state that the 15% budget allocation for the health sector, which the Respondent State agreed to in the Abuja Declaration, is an expression of political will, not a legally binding instrument, and cannot be enforced against the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol because they stated that a causal link between the facts and the alleged violations was not demonstrated. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 because they stated that it was not proven that the omissions of the health service providers had a specific and well-defined objective of humiliating the victims or inducing them to act against their will. Further, they state that it was not established that the acts or omissions of health service providers created feelings of fear, anguish, or inferiority in the victims. The Commission found no violation of Article 2 because, while fees for access to maternity services exist, the Commission states that it was not established the fees were introduced with the particular objective of preventing poor women from accessing maternity services. Regarding the discriminatory requirement that women must have their husband donate blood, or, alternatively, pay a fee, the Commission stated that there was no evidence to establish a violation. The Commission found no violation of Article 3 because they state that it was not established how victims received differential protection by the law and courts of the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they state that it was not shown how the ignorance of Nigerian women about contraception contributed to the risk of maternal mortality, or that the Respondent State played a passive role in providing information. The Commission found no violation of the right to scientific progress because they state that scientific progress has to be available, and it was not established how scientific progress in the Respondent State is available and sufficient to overcome these challenges, or that, if it is available, that it has been made inaccessible to women. The Commission found no violation of Article 7 because they stated that it was not demonstrated that the victims were prevented from seizing the compentent bodies, or that they were denied such an opportunity.

Country

Nigeria

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Dec 31, 2014 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.081999

Longitude: 8.675277

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Nigeria

Primary Documents

Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Primary Documents

Notifications