Complaint 17. The Author alleges that the following articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights have been violated:Articles 6, 7, 9 and 26. Procedure th 18. At its 25 Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission decided to be seized of the communication, and requested the Secretariat to notify the Nigerian government. It also requested the Secretariat to submit an opinion on the admissibility of the communication, particularly in accordance with Article 56.7 of the Charter, in relation to Nigeria's current political situation. th 19. On 19 August 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission notified the parties of this decision. th 20. At its 26 Ordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission declared the communication admissible and requested parties to submit written arguments on the merits of the case. th 21. On 17 January 2000, the Secretariat notified parties of the above decision. 22. On 17 February 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Banjul, referring to the above Note Verbale and requesting the Commission to forward the following documents to the country's competent authorities to enable them prepare for appropriate responses to the alleged violations: th a) The Draft Agenda for the 27 Ordinary Session and the letter of invitation to the session from the Secretariat; b) A copy of the complaint that was attached to the Secretariat’s Note; th c) A copy of the Report of the 26 Ordinary Session th 23. Further to the above request, the Secretariat of the Commission on 8 March 2000, forwarded all th the documents as requested (except the Report of the 26 Ordinary Session), together with a copy of the summary and status of all pending communications against Nigeria, a copy each of communications 218/98, 224/98 and 225/98 as submitted by their authors, and a copy of the written response of the Complainant on the merits of this communication. th 24. At its 27 Ordinary Session held in Algeria, the Commission reviewed the case and postponed its further consideration to the next session to enable the Government of Nigeria respond to its request for arguments on the merits of the case. 25. On 31st May 2000, the Secretariat received a letter from the Complainant inquiring about the th decision of the Commission at the 27 Ordinary Session. th 26. The above decision was communicated to parties on 6 July 2000. The Secretariat also acknowledged receipt of the complainant's letter of 31st May 2000. th 27. On 27 September 2000, the Secretariat received a response from the High Commission of the respondent state in the Gambia intended to be arguments on the merits of communications 224/98 and 225/98. The facts therein however focused on the former communication. rd 28. On 3 October 2000, the Secretariat of the Commission acknowledged receipt of Note Verbale and indicated the discrepancy. Also, a copy of the submission was forwarded to the Complainant for its observations. 29. During the session of the Commission in Benin, the Respondent State submitted additional arguments on the matter. The State Party's Response 30. The Government of Nigeria contends that the trial was conducted under a law that was validly enacted by the competent authority at that time. The Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Act, Cap 444 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 under which Malaolu was tried arose from the ashes of the Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree No.1 of 1986 enacted by the military government headed by General Ibrahim Babangida (Rtd.). Malaolu was therefore charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of a known law.