discussed, the executions should be delayed until the Commission had discussed the case with the
Nigerian authorities.
9. No response to this appeal was received before the executions were carried out.
10. On 7th November 1995 the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC) confirmed the sentences of death and on
10th November 1995 all the accused persons were executed in secret at the Port Harcourt Prison. By
section 7 of the Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunals) Decree No. 2 of 1987, under which the executed
persons were tried, the PRC are required to receive the records of the trial Tribunal before confirmation of
the decision is possible. These records were not prepared by the Tribunal and so were not available for the
PRC.
11. In 1996 the Secretariat received a communication from INTERIGHTS representing Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr.
It alleged that the condemned persons had been detained arbitrarily prior to and during the trial and that
they had been subjected to torture in the Army camp. Furthermore it alleged serious irregularities
concerning the conduct of the trial: that the tribunals that convicted the accused persons were not
independent; that there was no presumption of innocence; that the accused persons had not been given
time or facilities in which to prepare their defence; that they had been denied legal representation by a
counsel of their choice; that there was no right of appeal and that following the sentencing the persons
were held incommunicado. INTERIGHTS asserted that they were tried, convicted and sentenced to death
for the peaceful expression of their views and opinions on the violations of the rights of the Ogoni people.
12. In December 1996 the Secretariat received a communication from the Civil Liberties Organisation,
alleging that the Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Decree is invalid because it was made without
participation of the people; that its composition with military officers and members of the Provisional Ruling
Council meant that it could not be impartial; and that the lack of judicial review of the decisions of this
tribunal amount to a violation of the right to appeal and fair trial. The communication alleges that the trial,
conviction and sentencing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others violated Articles 7(1) (b), 7(1) (c) and 7(1)(d) of
the African Charter, and that the execution of these persons violates Article 4. The communication alleges
that the arraignment of 19 more alleged suspects constitutes another potential violation of the Charter.
Complaint
13. The communications allege violation of Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 26 of the African Charter.
The State response and observations
14. The government argues that its actions were necessary to protect the rights of the citizens who had
been murdered; that the tribunal which tried Saro-Wiwa was competent because two of its three members
were lawyers; that the process of confirmation by a state government was an adequate appeal; that the
Civil Disturbances Decree had not been protested upon its enactment in 1987 and that it had been set up
to deal with a crisis situation.
Procedure before the Commission
15. Communication 137/94 is dated 28th September 1994 and was submitted by International Pen.
16. Communication 139/94 is submitted by Constitutional Rights Project and dated 9th September 1994.
17. The Commission was seized of the communications at its 16th Session in October 1994, but deferred its
decision on admissibility pending notification and receipt of additional information from the Nigerian
Government.
18. At the 16th session the Commission decided to merge the communications.
19. On 9th November 1994, a notification of the two communications was sent to the Nigerian Government
and Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure was invoked, requesting the Nigerian Government not to cause
irreparable prejudice to Mr. Saro-Wiwa.
20. On 6th February 1995 a letter was received from International Pen stating that Mr Saro-Wiwa was being
ill-treated and that he was facing the death penalty.
21. On 13th February a letter was sent to the Nigerian Government re-emphasising the need for Rule 109 to
be applied.
22. On 22nd February 1995, a letter was received from Complainants stating that Ken Saro-Wiwa had been
charged and was scheduled to appear before a three person tribunal from which there was no right of
2