59. With respect to the Complainant’s assertion that the courts in the respondent state are weak and ineffective, the African Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domestic remedies. 60. The African Commission has held in Article 19 v Eritrea, that: “it is incumbent on the Complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies”, adding that: “it is not enough for the Complainant to cast aspersions on the ability of the domestic remedies of 6 the state due to isolated incidences”. In the same case, the Commission referred to the Human Rights Committee’s (the Committee) decision in A v Australia, in which the Committee held that: “mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or prospect of financial costs involved did not absolve 7 the author from pursuing such remedies”. 61. Furthermore, the Commission held in Chinhamo v Zimbabwe that, “Complainants are required to set out in their submissions the steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies. They must provide 8 some prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies.” Thus, the Commission is of the opinion that, by not attempting local remedies or substantiating the weaknesses or ineffectiveness, the Complainant cannot rely on this argument as reasons for their non-exhaustion of local remedies. 62. Regardless of the fact that there is no legislation in Nigeria domesticating the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ESR Covenant), the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria has certain provisions which embody most of the rights enumerated in the ESR Covenant. These provisions are contained in Chapter II (Sections 13-24) of the Constitution and couched as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. 63. Even though it can be argued that these are not rights, but mere political, economic, social, educational, environmental, cultural and foreign policy directives and that these provisions are nonjusticiable by virtue of section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution, the African Commission is of the view that this Chapter provides a foundation upon which economic and social rights could be enjoyed, and its provisions indicate that the courts are not excluded from entertaining cases relating to socio-economic rights. 64. Section 16(2)(d), for instance, requires the State to direct its policy towards ensuring that “suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care, pension, unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for the citizens”. Section 20 and 21, on the other hand, require the State to protect the environment and preserve and promote Nigerian cultures. 65. Furthermore, Nigeria is a state party to the African Charter and has domesticated the same. By reason of this domestication as required by section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, the African Charter has become part of Nigerian law. The African Charter therefore constitutes a normative base for socioeconomic rights claims which allow any claim brought under the Charter to be litigated before the national courts. 66. This was substantiated in Abacha v Fawehinmi, where the Supreme Court of Nigeria recognised the African Charter as part of Nigerian law and that its provisions were justiciable. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that: The African Charter which is incorporated into our municipal law becomes binding and our courts must give effect to it like all other laws falling within the judicial powers of the courts. Thus, if the individual rights contained in the African Charter are justiciable in Nigerian courts and the African Charter does not recognise any generational dichotomy of rights, the articles conferring socio-economic rights are equally justiciable in the Nigerian courts.9 67. This decision was also reflected in Ogugu v The State, where the Supreme Court held that: By reason of its domestication, the African charter has become part of Nigeria’s domestic laws and the enforcement of its provisions … falls within the judicial powers of the courts as provided by the Constitution and all other laws relating thereto since the African Charter is part of Nigeria’s domestic laws. Furthermore, that human and peoples’ rights of the African Charter are enforceable by several High Courts depending on the circumstances of each case and in accordance with the rules, practice 10 and procedure of each court.” 68. In Oronto Douglas v Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited, for instance, the federal government together with oil companies, including Shell Petroleum Development Company as the