laws.
11. Both courts gave judgement in favour of the publishers, after considering the evidence and legal
submissions from both the government and the publishers. The courts made monetary awards in damages
to the publishers and ordered the security agents to vacate the newspapers' premises. The security men
briefly vacated the premises, but returned a few weeks later to re-occupy them. The damages awarded
were never paid.
12. While the suits were pending before the courts, on 5th September 1994, the Government of Nigeria
issued three military decrees, Decrees No. 6, 7 and 8, by which it proscribed over 13 newspapers and
magazines published by the three media houses from being published, and also prohibited them from
circulation in Nigeria or any part thereof for a period of six months which could be further extended.
13. The representative of the Complainants, in his oral presentation before the Commission, emphasised
that the phrases "previously laid down by law" and "within the law" in Articles 6 and 9(2), respectively, do
not permit Nigeria to derogate from its international obligations by making laws at its whim.
14. The government responded orally that all decrees were necessary due to the "special circumstances"
which brought it to power. It maintained that most of the detainees had been released and most
newspapers were permitted to circulate. The government stated that it derogated from provisions of the
Constitution of Nigeria "in view of the situation", justified by public morality, public safety and overriding
public interest. With specific regard to Article 9, the government argued that "within the law" must refer to
the current law of Nigeria, not to the Nigerian Constitution or an international standard.
Complaint
15. The Complainants allege that the following provisions of the African Charter have been violated:
Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 14 and 26
Procedure
16. Communication 140/94 is dated 7th September 1994 and is submitted by Constitutional Rights Project.
The Secretariat acknowledged its receipt on 23rd January 1995.
17. At the 16th Session, the Commission decided to be seized of the communication and to send
notification of it to the Government of Nigeria. In addition, the Commission called upon the Government of
Nigeria to ensure that the health of the victims was not in danger. Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure was
therefore invoked.
18. At the 17th Session, held in March 1995 in Lomé, Togo, the Commission declared the communication
admissible. There was no response from the Nigerian Government.
19. Communication 141/94 is dated 19th October 1994 and was filed by the Civil Liberties Organisation. It
was received at the Secretariat on 24th October 1994.
20. At the 16th Session, held in October 1994, the Commission was seized of the communication and
decided that the state should be notified. It was also decided that the communication be joined with
communication 140/94.
21. Communication 145/95 is dated 7th September 1994 and is filed by Media Rights Agenda, a Nigerian
NGO.
22. At the 18th session the Commission was seized of the communication. It was also decided that the
communication should be taken up along with the others on the Nigeria mission.
23. The Commission decided to send a mission to Nigeria from 7th to 14th March 1997 and the mission took
up the communications. The Commission has adopted the mission report.
24. The parties were regularly notified of all the procedure.
Law
Admissibility
25. Article 56(5) of the African Charter reads: Communications ...shall be considered if they: Are sent after
exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged,...
2