The ECOWAS Court of Justice dismissed a suit filed by four individuals seeking self‑determination for Nigeria’s Yoruba people. The three‑man panel—Justices Edward Amoako Asante (presiding), Gberi‑Bè Ouattara, and Dupe Atoki—ruled that the applicants lacked the capacity to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of the Yoruba nation.
The four applicants, members of the Coalition of Yoruba Interest Group, are Risqat Badmus, Ademola Faleti, Yemisi Fadahunsi‑Ogunlana and Adigun Makanjuola. In the case (ECW/CCJ/APP/08/22) they invoked Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Articles 3, 4, 7 and 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, seeking to activate their right to self‑determination. They argued that Nigeria’s 1914 creation by the British ignored the country’s social, cultural, religious and ethnic realities, and that the “Constitutional Force Majeure” proclamation—published in newspapers—offered an opportunity for the Federal Government to improve governance. By failing to respond to their petition, they claimed Nigeria acknowledged the 1999 Constitution’s inadequacy and its inability to govern the territory, thereby opening the door to Yoruba self‑determination.
The applicants asked the court to determine whether the 1999 Constitution remained operative after the deadline set in their proclamation and to assess the possibility of self‑determination for Yorubaland. Alternatively, they urged the Nigerian government to hold a referendum allowing their territory to secede from the respondent state. In its counter‑affidavit, the Federal Republic of Nigeria argued that the suit threatened the country’s sovereignty and sought to use the court’s jurisdiction to question the validity of the 1999 Constitution. Nigeria maintained that it is a federation governed by the rule of law and that the applicants lacked authority to assess the Constitution’s efficacy, requesting dismissal on the grounds that the case rested on individual opinions, speculation and insinuation.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Dupe Atoki held that, as individuals, the applicants failed to demonstrate the standing required to assert the right to self‑determination on behalf of the Yoruba people. The judge emphasized that the applicants could not show they represented the Yoruba community for whom the action was brought, stating that “a representative action is the appropriate and indeed the most practicable option in seeking relief for violation of this right.” Consequently, the court dismissed the suit.
Comments are closed for this story.