By zainab.joaque@awokonewspaper.sl
Freetown, SIERRA LEONE – The ECOWAS Court of Justice has on 13th March, 2023, dismissed an application brought before it by members of an association seeking self-determination for the Yoruba people of Nigeria.
Reading the judgement, Justice Dupe Atoki said the Court holds that, the Application seeking relief on behalf of the Yoruba Nation for violation of their right to self-determination is inadmissible.
The Court, she said has not been presented with any proof of authorization by the Yoruba Nation to the Applicants, they are therefore not entrusted with the capacity to bring this Application on their behalf.
The crux of the Applicants’ allegation hinges on alleged marginalization by the Respondent of the Yoruba Nation and the lack of their participation in Government, leading to this representative action by the Applicants seeking relief on behalf of the Yoruba Nation for the enjoyment of the Nation’s right to self-determination under Article 21 of the Charter.
While the Court notes that one of the groups that signed the proclamation is from the Yoruba land, the signatures in the opinion of the Court are inconsequential as it does not amount to an authority from the Yoruba Nation to institute this action on their behalf before this Court.
Rather as earlier stated, the Judge said, it is an identification of persons from different regions of Nigeria including those from the Yoruba Nation who presented a petition to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Applicants, Risqat Badmus, Ademola Faleti, Yemisi Fadahunsi-Ogunlana and Adigun Makanjuola, all members of the Coalition of Yoruba Interest Group sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria, seeking a declaration by the Court to activate their rights to self-determination as provided for under 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 the indigenous People.
The Applicants, who also belong to the Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination (NINAS) said they raised a petition titled Constitutional Force Majeure Proclamation and gave the Respondent 90-days to respond.
In their petition, the Applicants argued that Nigeria was constituted in 1914 by the British Government without taking into account the social, cultural, religious and ethnic configuration of the country.
They added that since its independence in 1960 which was supposed to be based on true federalism, Nigeria has not been able to forge a common interest that will ensure the development of all the federating units. They alleged that the Northern States set the precedence for their action in 2000 when they adopted the Sharia Law, de facto ceding from Nigeria.
They argued that the Constitutional Force Majeure Proclamation, published in newspapers, was an opportunity for the Respondent to set the country on the path of better governance and that by choosing not to reply to their petition, the Respondent acknowledged the inadequacy of the 1999 Constitution and his inability of the Respondent to administer power over its territory, therefore opening the door for self-determination for the Yorubas.
In its reply, the Federal Republic of Nigeria said the Applicants sought to threaten the sovereignty and autonomy of the country and were invoking “the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to determine the validity of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999”.
The Respondent argued that the country is a Federation observing the rule of law and that the Applicants did not have the authority to determine the efficacy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Respondent contended that the case has nothing to do with human rights violation, but an attempt to upturn the country’s Constitution which is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Moreover, the Respondent contended that the publication in a newspaper of the Constitutional Force Majeure Proclamation did not amount to a bill of the National Assembly which has the sole power to amend any perceived lacuna in the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Respondent insisted that Nigeria gained independence as a unified and indivisible State in 1960 which the ECOWAS Court of Justice has no power to dissolve. ZIJ/16/3/2023