33. At its 21st Session held in April 1997, the Commission postponed taking decision on the merits to the next session, pending the submission of scholarly articles and court case by the Complainants to assist it in its decision. The Commission also awaits further analysis of its report of the mission to Nigeria. 34. On 22nd May 1997, the Complainants were informed of the Commission's decision, while the State was informed on May 28th 1997. 35. At the 22nd Ordinary session, the Commission postponed taking a decision to the next session pending a discussion of the Nigerian Mission report. 36. At the 23rd Ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 20th-29th April 1998, the Commission postponed consideration of this case due to lack of time. 37. On 25th June 1998, the Secretariat of the Commission sent letters to the parties involved informing them of the status of the case. 38. During the 24th Ordinary session, the Complainants furnished the Commission with a "supplementary submission on pending communications on Nigeria", basically urging the Commission to continue consideration of communications against Nigeria including the instant one because the violations have not abated, and the change in government following the death of General Sani Abacha has not changed any State responsibility of Nigeria. Law Admissibility 39. Article 56 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... 40. The annulment of the elections was brought before various Nigerian courts by various parties, as was the seizure of the magazines. None of these actions resulted in a remedy of the prejudice alleged, either reinstatement of the election results or compensation for the confiscated magazines. 41. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain these actions in the first place is in serious question. Decree No. 43, like almost all decrees promulgated by the military government, contains ouster clause which specifies that the Decree cannot be challenged in the national courts. The ouster clauses create a legal situation in which the judiciary can provide no check on the executive branch of government. A few courts in the Lagos district have occasionally found that they have jurisdiction; in 1995 the Court of Appeal in Lagos, relying on common law, found that courts should examine some decrees notwithstanding ouster clauses, where the decree is "offensive and utterly hostile to rationality" (Reprinted in Constitutional Rights Journal). In a unanimous opinion the Court of Appeal holden at Lagos on December 12th 1996 in the case of Chief Gani Fawehinmi v General Sani Abacha, Attorney-General of the Federation, State Security Services, Inspector General of Police, held that the African Charter being the joint effort of States, no legislative body in Nigeria could oust its operation and application in Nigeria. Dr A.H. Yadudu, Special Adviser (Legal Matters) to the Head of State of Nigeria underscored the importance of this case in a written address to the members of the Commission to Nigeria on Friday, March 14th 1997. However, it is fair to state that at the time the case came before the Commission no effective legal remedy existed in Nigeria of which the appellants could avail themselves. 42. Furthermore, the Constitution (Modification and Suspension) specifies that even decrees that may lack an internal ouster clause cannot be challenged. Thus, Nigerians face huge legal obstacles in challenging any new law. 43. The Commission, in its decision on communication 129/94, decided that in this situation, "it is reasonable to presume that domestic remedies will not only be prolonged but are certain to yield no results." ( ACHPR\S1\129/94:9 ). 44. For these reasons the Commission declared the communication admissible. 3