Para. : “Whereas in the terms of Article 66(2) of the Rules of the Court “The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings”, it is ripe to adopt same.”
— Oserada v ECOWAS Council of Ministers & Ors. (2008) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08
SHARE ON
Para. 24: “Before proceeding to analyze the facts of this case, the Court must first address the capacity of the 2nd to 4th Respondents who are the agents of the 1 st Respondent – The Republic of Liberia. It is trite law that only parties to treaties can be bound and held responsible for their implementation. This Court has held on several occasions that agents of member state of the ECOWAS treaty are not proper persons capable of being sued before this Court for the violation of the said treaty or other relevant international Human rights instruments signed by member state of the ECOWAS.”
— Boley v Liberia & Ors. (2019) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19
“21. The Revised Treaty of 1993 is the supreme law of ECOWAS, and it may be called its Constitution. By Article 89 of the Revised Treaty, Protocols made pursuant thereto shall form an integral patt thereof.”
— Ukor v Laleye (2005) – ECW/CCJ/APP/01/04
✓ In the case of JOHNNY KING & 10 Ors V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 9 Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/06/19, the Court held that: “The Court has looked at the laws regarding its jurisprudence as well as precedents in this Court, and it is so clear that, it is only member states of ECOWAS who are signatories to the treaties can be brought before this Court for human rights violations and this Court has maintained that position in all its decisions.”
✓ In SERAP V. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/10, The Court confirms that: “In the context and legal framework of ECOWAS, the court stands by its current understanding that only member States and Community Institutions can be sued before it for alleged violation of human right as laid down in Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue delivered on 11 th day of June 2010”.
In BADINI SALFO V THE REPUBLIC OF BURKINA FASO JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/12, the Court while relying in its judgment in CNDD v. COTE D’ IVOIRE (2009) Para 55, and PROF. ETIM MOSES v. REP OF GAMBIA, (2007) Para 31, held that: “Equality before the law presupposes that equal treatment is accorded people finding themselves in similar situations. Thus, examining the allegation of the violation of the principle of equality requires that, at least two similar legal situations be put side by side as to compare and find out whether an ill treatment was concretely meted out to either one or both of them”.
In Hissein Habre v. Republic of Senegal; ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08 & ECW/CCJ/03/10, this Court held that in determining whether it has jurisdiction, it shall consider: • If the issues submitted before it deals with a right which has been enshrined for the benefit of the human person; • Whether it arises from international or community obligations of the state complained of, as Human Rights to be promoted, observed, protected, and enjoyed; • Whether it is the violation of that right which is being alleged. See also Private Alimu Akeem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/ RUL/05/11, pg. 119 affirming the same condition precedent.
60. This Court has severally granted leave for intervention as amicus curiae on the grounds that the said amicus is not a party to the suit and has no proprietary interest in the said claim. The intervention must simply be an objective assistance into the research exercise necessary in the adjudication of the claim/s before the Court. 61. The present applications for leave to intervene as amicus and the submissions by the amici curiae has been considered by this Court and the same is granted.
— SERAP v FRN (2022) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/22
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry