journalists are not investigated,
let alone to prosecute the suspects, the State will
be
under
in
breach
of
its
obligation
the
Treaty
and
also
the
ACHPR,
as
such
impunity has the effect of denying the journalists the right to function and thus
stifling freedom of expression. These two claims also succeed on the facts.
The last issue is the failure to provide redress. The plaintiffs claim the Defendant
has not provided the deceased’s family with any redress or compensation for his
death
and
the
violation
of
his freedom
of expression;
and
that
the
failure
to
effectively investigate his death and identify the perpetrators has prevented them
from seeking compensation themselves.
Since
February
investigations
2005
no
attempt
into the murder
threats to the deceased
has been
made
of the deceased.
which the deceased
to
The
conduct
any
eyewitnesses
recounted
to them
meaningful
spoke
about
in his lifetime.
The NIA did not contact these witnesses for any details as to those threats. The
personal safety of these witnesses who genuinely feared
for their lives was
not
guaranteed to enable them
assist in the enquiries. The NIA was quick to. put the
docket
well
away
knowing
full
that
the
eyewitnesses
had
been
scared
off.
However, we have failed to find a direct linkage of the Defendant to the murder
of the
effective
deceased.
The
Defendant
is held
responsible
investigations into the murder. The
for the
apparent
lack of
linkage of the climate of impunity
and abuse of freedom of expression to the murder is also difficult to conclude as
there is no iota of evidence as to who
was
thrown
up
most
of who
are
Defendant. So whatever:award
Defendant’s
failure
carried out the murder. A list of suspects
private
persons
that will be made
to conduct
effective
and
with
no
connection
to the
will only take into account the
impartial
investigations
into
the
murder.
Decision
For reasons already explained this court upholds the claims by the plaintiffs and
grants all reliefs and orders sought except special damages for none was proven
in evidence. The court accordingly enters judgment for the plaintiffs against the
Defendant. The plaintiffs are-eawarded compensation in the sum of fifty thousand
U.S.
dollars
(USS50,000.00)
for
the
prejudice
10
suffered
as
a
result
of
the