The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has rejected a suit brought against Nigeria by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because it lacked the relevant ingredients to qualify as a case that it could entertain as a public interest litigation.

SERAP filed the case after the terrorist attack on an Abuja/Kaduna passenger train on March 28, 2022.

In the attack, armed assailants bombed the train carrying over 970 passengers along the Abuja-Kaduna rail line near Rigasa, in Kaduna.

The attack led to numerous fatalities, injuries, and abductions.

SERAP, by its case, sought to hold the government of Nigeria accountable for alleged human rights violations in relation to the terrorist attack, claiming among others, that it was due to the state’s inability to provide adequate security.

SERAP argued that Nigeria’s alleged lack of adequate preventive measures violated the rights of passengers to life, security, and dignity.

It prayed for N50million compensation for each passenger and victim’s family.

The court, in a judgment on November 13, declared the suit inadmissible due to lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.
According to a statement by the court, the judgment was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki.

It added that “the court recognised its jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved potential human rights violations within a member state, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol.

“However, the court found the claim inadmissible on grounds that it failed to meet the victim status requirement essential for litigation under Article 10(d) of the same Protocol.

“In its findings, the court said that SERAP claimed to be acting in public interest, citing previous incidents of terrorism in the region, including attacks on educational institutions and transportation services.

Read Also: Legal fireworks as Yoruba nation agitators challenge jurisdiction of court
“However, the court determined that the case did not meet the criteria for a public interest action, or actio popularis, which requires that the alleged violations affect a large, indeterminate segment of the public or the general public itself.

“The Court highlighted that: The victims of the March 28 attack were identifiable individuals rather than an indeterminate public group, making the claim unsuitable as a public interest litigation.

“The reliefs sought, including specific monetary compensation, were directed at the identifiable victims of the attack rather than the public at large.

“Members of the three-member panel of the court were Honourable Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves(presiding judge), Honorable Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (panel member), and Honorable Justice Dupe Atoki (judge rapporteur).”