The Economic Community Community Court of West African National (ECOWAS) ruled on Friday that involved Khalifa Abiola and two other cases against the Nigerian federal government centered on human rights allegedly related to the late Mrs. Kudirat Abiola.
According to the judgment of the Rapporteur Judge honor. Justice Edward Amoako Asante, The court found the case unacceptable, on the grounds that the applicant failed to directly relate to the deceased and did not provide any legal power to act as an indirect victim on behalf of his property.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the objection raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which challenged its jurisdiction over the matter and claimed that it belongs to the parameter of Article 9 of the Protocol of the Court.
The court also dismissed the defendant’s claim that the applicant attempted to revisit a case that had been ruled by the state court and that the matter exceeded the allowed period of legal proceedings.
The case was registered by litigation number ECW/CCJ/APP/62/22 and initiated by applicants Khalifa Abiola, Moriam Abiola and Hadi Abiola, who attempted to represent the property of the late Kudirat, who were allegedly murdered by the gunman in Nigeria.
The applicant asserts that Kudirat is Chief Mko Abaibes, A famous Nigerian politician who won the presidential election in June 1993 but was blocked from taking office by a military regime led by General Ibrahim Babajda.
They argued that Chief Abiola was subsequently arrested, charged with treason and imprisoned without solitary confinement.
The applicant notified the court that Kudirat assassinated her husband in June 1996 and released a campaign.
They claimed that Kudirat’s basic human rights were protected by the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights and that the Nigerian government was not responsible for her murder, including official Barnabas Jebila, who was named in the committee’s results of the inquiry.
The Nigerian government objected, believing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the case was an acceptable case.
According to the court’s analysis, the case falls within its scope because it involves the defendant’s alleged violation of human rights, i.e., failure to fulfill his ongoing responsibility to hold Kudirat’s killer responsible.
Regarding whether the court can hear questions previously identified by the national courts, the court explained that its role is to assess member states’ compliance with international human rights standards, rather than as a place of appeal for national courts.
The court noted that petitioners who sued the property on behalf of themselves and Kudirat did not show that they had legal liability and ability to do so.
The court declared the case unacceptable because the applicant lacked the legal ability to sue on behalf of himself and the late Kudirat.
