ECOWAS Court of Justice has rejected an application by the Nigerian government seeking a revision of its earlier judgment in the prominent human rights case of Mr Gregory Todd against the country.
The court, in a ruling, noted that Nigeria’s application was without merit and an abuse of its post-judgment processes.
The court, therefore, ordered the nation to comply with the initial verdict, which included the payment of damages to Mr Todd.
The original judgment, delivered on November 6, 2023, under case number ECW/CCJ/JUD/41/23, found Nigeria in breach of Mr Todd’s fundamental freedom of movement.
This infringement arose from what the court deemed an unreasonable and arbitrary seizure of his passport by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).Consequently, the court had ordered Nigeria to pay $10,000 to Todd as damages, while dismissing all other claims he had presented.
Nigeria’s subsequent application for a revision of this judgment, filed under Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/56/21/REV, was predicated on Articles 92 and 93 of the Court’s Rules. The Federal Government asserted the discovery of “new facts” on April 5, 2024, after the initial judgment had been handed down.
However, in a curious turn, instead of presenting these purported new facts and their supporting evidence, Nigeria’s legal team advanced three points of law as the basis for their revision request.
These arguments included contentions that the ECOWAS Court had exceeded its legal powers by recognising a foreign national’s human rights application under Article 10(d) of its Protocol, that it had improperly assumed appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Nigerian domestic courts by hearing Mr Todd’s human rights application, and that the matter was inadmissible given that it had allegedly been conclusively determined by the Federal High Court of Abuja, thereby invoking the doctrine of res judicata.
Upon reviewing the revision application, the judicial panel affirmed its jurisdiction to consider such requests under Article 27 of the Court’s Protocol (as amended), which empowers the court to review judgments upon the discovery of new facts of a decisive nature.
However, the court unequivocally held that Nigeria’s application for revision was inadmissible. The panel determined that the grounds outlined by Nigeria did not, in fact, constitute “new facts” within the meaning of Article 27.
By
