About two decades after the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, several countries, including Nigeria, have remained adamant towards activating Article 34 with dire consequences on citizens’ rights, But it does appear that countries withholding activation to the article are afraid they would infringe on the rights of their citizens and would not want to be taken to the international stage for adjudication.
Although Nigeria has one of its justices sitting on the Court’s panel, it has been indecisive on the issue of article 34, a situation described as a deliberate attempt to violate citizens’ rights and at the same time, deny them access to ventilating their grievances. Rwanda withdrew the article 34 declarations in 2016, Tanzania 2019; Cote d’Ivoire in 2020 and the Republic of Benin in 2020.
“States should therefore be very cautious about exercising the option of withdrawing their article 34 declarations as such an action diminishes the established right to access justice of its nationals.” While beckoning on withdrawing member states to return, all eyes are on Nigeria to take a leap by declaring the article so that others can be motivated.
“All parties to the conflict committed violations of international law, including war crimes with impunity. Elsewhere, unlawful killings and violence were perpetrated by bandits but the authorities responded with enforced disappearances, torture, arbitrary detention and severe restrictions to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. Media outlets and journalists had their freedom of expression curtailed by the authorities.
A Port Harcourt-based lawyer and a researcher on African Court, Chief Festus Oguche, felt that the high expectation that the Court will usher in an environment of ideal freedom, equality and justice by taking centre stage has eluded the continent. “That also explains the widespread weakness of Africa’s domestic judicial institutions, which themselves, are ensconced into the said order as instruments and appendages of the autocratic system.
“This merger necessitated the division of the court into one of general affairs and another of human rights, each composed of eight judges with the jurisdiction of the human rights court submerged and lumped into that of the general affairs court which exercises both civil and criminal jurisdictions.
He further described Nigeria as a microcosm of the continent which can be used to mirror the status and standards of human rights defiance or compliance in Africa.