The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) has rejected a suit filed by a group of Nigerian activists, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) over an attack by bandits on an Abuja-Kaduna train on March 28, 2022.

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because relevant ingredients that could qualify it to be entertained as a public interest litigation were missing.

SERAP filed the case after bandits attacked the Abuja-Kaduna passenger train in 2022.

In the attack, armed assailants bombed the train carrying over 970 passengers on 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

The organisation claimed, among others, that the attack was the result of the state’s inability to provide tight security for the passengers.

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

It prayed for a N50 million compensation for each of the passengers and their families.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the regional court declared the suit inadmissible due to lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.

A statement by the court said the judgment was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki.

It added: “The court recognized 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.

“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).”