The government of Nigeria has been ordered by the ECOWAS Court of Justice to pay Oluwatimilehin Adebayo ₦5 million in reparations for the infringement of his right to be free from torture.
Nigeria was also directed by the court to investigate the torture promptly, impartially, and effectively and to bring charges against those involved.
Adebayo claimed in a lawsuit filed under the name ECW/CCJ/APP/47/23 that he was severely abused by Ogun State police officers, who beat him with an axe handle and chained his limbs to a pole.
He claimed that in addition to causing him severe psychological agony, this experience also left him with physical wounds, including scrotal damage.
But the Nigerian government, the respondent, contested the court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the action was statute-barred because it was brought after the three-year statute of limitations allowed by the court’s rules.
Additionally, it contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue since doing so would require that a municipal court in the respondent state consider a case that is either pending (sub judice) or has already been determined.
But in its ruling, the court upheld its authority to hear human rights claims and rejected Nigeria’s preliminary objections. Human rights violations are exempt from the three-year statute of limitations outlined in Article 9(3)(b) of the Court’s Protocol.
The court determined that these actions amounted to torture and violated Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a party, in the ruling handed down by Justice Dupe Atoki.
The Court observed that the purpose of the deliberate torture was to force Mr. Adebayo to sign a pre-written statement.
The government of Nigeria was consequently ordered to compensate the applicant for the infringement of his right to be free from torture by paying him ₦5 million.
Additionally, it mandated that Nigeria perform a swift, unbiased, and efficient inquiry into the torture and bring charges against those involved.
Nevertheless, the Court rejected the argument that the applicant’s right to a remedy had been infringed, stating that there was no proof the applicant had notified the appropriate authorities of the abuse in writing, the statement continued.
