ECOWAS court orders FG to probe 1978 company seizure by Obasanjo’s junta

The ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja has “ordered the Federal Government to probe the seizure of the shares of a 94 year old Nigerian Mr Kolawole Koiki in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd by the Olusegun Obasanjo led military government.

The court also ordered the Federal Government to pay Mr Kolawole Koiki N5 million “as compensation for the violation of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time contrary to Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.”

The court also ordered the Federal Government to “take all necessary measures to ensure the hearing and determination of the complaint the Applicant lodge with the National Human Rights Commission without further delay.”

The judgment followed the suit filed by Mr Kolawole Koiki against the government of Nigeria over the “failure to conclude through the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), failed to conclude the hearing and determination of a complaint he lodged with the Commission.”

The complaint concerned the seizure, in 1978, of the Applicant’s shares in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd by the Government of Nigeria under a law which expressly ousts the jurisdiction of any court to entertain any legal proceeding challenging the seizure of the company.”

The lawsuit brought by human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Femi Falana on behalf of the Applicant argues that “the failure of the Respondent’s National Human Rights Commission to complete the hearing and determination of his complaint about the seizure of his shares in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd violates his fundamental right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1) of the African Charter.”

The judgment in suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/46/21 delivered on 17 November 2025, read in part: “The Applicant states that he owned 216,000 shares out of the 480,000 shares in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd, a company that was incorporated in 1973.”

“In this case, the Applicant alleges that he submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria regarding the unjustified seizure, without compensation, of his 46% shares in a company known as the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd by the Government of Nigeria in 1978.”

“Since the complaint was submitted [in 2010], the Human Rights Commission has failed or refused to complete investigations into the matter and issue a report.”

“Because this allegation implicates the Respondent’s human rights obligation to guarantee to the Applicant a right to fair hearing under Article 7 of the African Charter, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction consistent with Article 9(4) o f the Protocol of the Court.”

“Article 10(d) o f the Court’s Protocol requires three main admissibility conditions for human rights cases. These are (a) the applicant’s victim status or standing, (b) the non-anonymity o f the application; and (c) the non-pendency of the matter before another international court or tribunal.”

“In this case, the Court observes that the Applicant has demonstrated his victim status b y pleading sufficient facts that show, prima facie, that the conduct of the Respondent’s National Human Rights Commission has infringed his right to a fair hearing.”

“Secondly, the case has not been presented anonymously, nor is there evidence that the claims are pending before another international court, contrary to the admissibility requirements of Article 10(d) of the Protocol of the Court. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Application is admissible.”

“Having regard to the pleadings in the Application including the reliefs sought, the Court considers that there is only one main issue for determination: Whether the failure of the Respondent’s National Human Rights Commission to complete the investigation and determination of the complaint lodged by the Applicant violates the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1) of the African Charter.”

“The Applicant submits that despite commencing investigations, the Respondent’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has failed or refused, since 2015, to conclude the hearing and determination of his complaint concerning the unlawful and unjustifiable expropriation of his property by the Nigerian Government under the New Nigeria Salt Company Limited (Takeover) Act 1978.”

“The Applicant contends that this conduct of the NHRC violates his right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”

“The Respondent submits that the NHRC received the Applicant’s complaint and began preliminary investigations in March 2014. However, the process was halted when the Federal Government dissolved all boards, including the NHRC Governing Council in 2015.”

“Given that the NHRC Governing Council is the only body empowered under the NHRC Act 1995 to hear and determine complaints, the process could not move forward.”

“The Respondent also contends that, in any event, the NHRC’s preliminary investigations revealed that the Applicant’s complaint was not a human rights issue. Rather, it concerned the recovery of equity interests belonging to the Applicant’s company in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd, which the Federal Military Government seized in 1978.”

“The Respondent further argues that after the NHRC Council’s dissolution, the Applicant could have sought redress in court but failed to do so. Accordingly, it maintains that there was no denial of fair hearing to the Applicant as the NHRC conducted preliminary
investigations into the Applicant’s complaint.”

“The Court begins by addressing the Respondent’s contention that the Applicant’s complaint before the NHRC was not a human rights matter, but rather the recovery of equity interests belonging to the Applicant in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd, which is statute barred by virtue of its seizure under the New Nigeria Salt Company Limited (Takeover) Act 1978.”

“The Court considers that by virtue of the Applicant’s second or further Amended Initiating Application dated 16 July 2024, the matter presented before this Court is the alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time arising from the failure or refusal of the NHRC to conclude the investigation and determination of the complaint submitted to it.”

“The underlying merit of the complaint before the NHRC or its justiciability under the Respondent’s Constitution or other laws, is a separate question from the issue before this Court. This Court has been invited only to decide whether the Applicant’s complaint received a fair hearing within a reasonable time before the NHRC, not whether the substance of his complaint before the NHRC had merit.”

“Having clarified the issue in contention, the Court recalls Article 7(1) of the African Charter which states: right to be defended by counsel of his choice.”

“In this case, the Court observes that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of the Respondent is a quasi-judicial body established by law and vested with the authority to promote and protect human rights through investigation of human rights violations and the making of appropriate recommendations.”

“On whether the failure of the NHRC to complete the investigation and determination of the Applicant’s complaint since 2015 violates his right to a fair hearing, the Court takes note of the Respondent’s submission that this was due to the dissolution of the Governing Council of the NHRC in 2015.”

“The Respondent states that the Governing Council, the sole authority empowered to adjudicate human rights complaints before the Commission, remained dissolved until its reconstitution in 2021, the same year the Applicant brought his case before this Court.”

“The Court notes, however, that as far as the right of the individual to a fair hearing within a reasonable time is concerned, it is the responsibilities of State Parties to the African Charter to organize their judiciary in such a way that the right guaranteed in Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter can be effectively enjoyed.”

“In light of the above, the Court considers that it is the responsibility of the Respondent to ensure that its entire judicial system is functional and able to deliver on its mandate effectively and efficiently.”

“This includes not only the regular courts but also tribunals and quasi- judicial bodies such as the NHRC charged with determining the rights or obligations of individuals, in accordance with Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter.”

“However, based on the Respondent’s own submission, it can be inferred that for about six years, from 2015 to 2021, when the governing council of the NHRC was dissolved and not reconstituted, no action was taken on the Applicant’s complaint before the NHRC.”

“The dissolution of the governing council and the failure to reconstitute it for six years was an act of the Respondent state, not that of any external party. Therefore, the Court considers that the Respondent cannot extricate itself from its own conduct which was responsible for the failure or inability of the NHRC to conclude the investigations into the Applicant’s complaint.”

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent’s failure, for six years, to reconstitute the governing council of the NHRC to enable it to conclude the investigation and determination of the Applicant’s complaint, as well as those of similarly situated persons, is inexcusable and amounts to a violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter.”

“Given the Court’s conclusion that the Respondent has violated the Applicant’s rights under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter, the Court must consider the appropriate reparations the Respondent must make.”

“In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers 5 million naira to be just compensation by way of general damages for the violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter.”

The post ECOWAS court orders FG to probe 1978 company seizure by Obasanjo’s junta appeared first on Vanguard News.