ECOWAS court orders Nigeria to pay ₦5M for police torture

The Federal Republic of Nigeria has been ordered by the ECOWAS Court of Justice to compensate Oluwatimilehin Adebayo ₦5 million for the infringement of his right to be free from torture.

In its ruling, which was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki and forwarded to our correspondent on Thursday, the court ordered the Nigerian government to look into the torture Adebayo suffered as soon as possible, impartially, and effectively, and to bring charges against those involved.

Adebayo claimed in a lawsuit filed under the ECW/CCJ/APP/47/23 that he was severely abused by Ogun State police, including being beaten with an axe handle and having his limbs chained to a pole.

He claimed that the experience caused him great psychological distress in addition to bodily harm, including scrotal damage.

The Nigerian government challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case was filed outside the three-year limitation period stipulated under the court’s rules and that the matter was either pending or already decided in a Nigerian court.

However, the ECOWAS Court dismissed the preliminary objections, asserting its jurisdiction to hear human rights cases. Justice Atoki clarified, “The three-year limitation period under Article 9(3)(b) of the Court’s Protocol does not apply to cases of human rights violations.”

The court found that the actions of the police officers amounted to torture, in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory.

It added, “The Court noted that the torture was intentional and aimed at coercing Mr. Adebayo into signing a pre-written statement. Consequently, it ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to pay ₦5 million in compensation to the Applicant for the violation of his right to freedom from torture.

“It also ordered Nigeria to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation into the torture and prosecute those responsible.

“However, the Court dismissed the claim that the applicant’s right to a remedy had been violated, noting that there was no evidence the Applicant had formally reported the abuse to relevant authorities.”