86. In all, the Applicants are seeking reliefs before this Court amongst others for
compensation for the dead victims, the injured and for damaged properties and also
reparation for their people living in internally displaced camps under deplorable
conditions. They therefore claim the sum of N105, 066,204,016.00 as compensation
for themselves and the victims of the crisis listed in exhibits 2-20.
87. The summary of the Respondents case is as follows:
a) The Respondent in opposition to the claims denied any violation of the rights
of the Applicants, contending that it reacted promptly to the crisis and took
measures to quell the riots by mobilizing its security agents to the scene of the
mayhem within a reasonable time despite its overstretched resources.
b) The Respondents averred that no government personnel and/or agent
perpetuated or participated in the alleged killings and destruction of properties
and thus cannot be held responsible for the attacks.
c) Respondents relying on exhibit 26 claimed that after the riot, they fulfilled
their obligation by arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators. They claimed
that a panel of investigation into the crisis was set up and its recommendations
in a white paper was adopted by the Federal Executive Council which directed
the Federal Ministry of lands and Housing to assess the reported losses and
damage to properties in all affected states.
d) Respondent averred that following from the White paper report of the
investigating panel, the sum of N5, 747,694,780.00 was approved to ensure
that the nine affected States, including Kaduna State where the Applicants’
communities are situated receive adequate compensation for their losses.
e) The Respondents’ refuted inhuman conditions alleged in the internally
displaced camps and insists that they provided food and accommodation
facilities for the victims in the Internally Displaced Camps.
f) In the interim, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the
admissibility of the action on the 2 grounds; that the 1 st Applicant lacked the
locus standi to institute this action on behalf of themselves and all the Muslim
victims of the crisis in the said communities and that no reasonable cause of
action has been established to maintain the suit before the Court.
g) The Respondents therefore urge the Court to hold that it did not violate the
human rights, nor fail in its obligation to protect, prevent and fulfil the rights
of the Applicants as guaranteed in the relevant provisions of the African
24