Renowned legal firm specializing in social advocacy and human rights, Crownfield Solicitors, has threatened to drag Heads of States of ECOWAS to the International Court of Justice over their push for anti-human rights’ policies. The legal body said in a compelling letter to all the President of the ECOWAS states, expressing grave concerns over the proposed changes to the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. Chief Festus A. Ogwuche, the principal partner of Crownfield and a Constitutional Lawyer, highlighted the potential implications of altering the court’s established jurisdictional criteria and the admissibility of complaints. Ogwuche said the move stemmed from recent deliberations among the Authority of Heads of States and Government, as well as the meeting of regional Chief Justices constituting the Judicial Service Commission of the ECOWAS court, raising objections to proposals aimed at modifying the court’s core jurisdictional features, particularly regarding the criteria for the admissibility of complaints.
He underscored the critical role of the ECOWAS court in safeguarding fundamental rights against violations by member states, arguing that while the objective of establishing a common legal order for prompt adherence to court decisions is commendable, the proposed approach of mandating exhaustion of local remedies before invoking the court’s jurisdiction calls for re-evaluation. Ogwuche highlighted the systemic weaknesses plaguing domestic judicial systems across Africa, which often fail to provide effective justice due to inadequate resources, political interference, and lack of autonomy, emphasising the necessity of international mechanisms like the ECOWAS court to complement national institutions in upholding human rights. He cautioned against the introduction of requirements for exhaustion of local remedies, which could undermine the progress achieved in regional legal frameworks and human rights enforcement since the court’s establishment in 1975, stressing the importance of maintaining the ECOWAS court’s concurrent jurisdiction with state systems, particularly in addressing human rights violations.
Ogwuche reminded of the ECOWAS court’s role as a court of first instance for enforcing fundamental rights, filling the gaps left by national judicial systems, stressing that the court’s jurisdiction extends beyond domestic legal frameworks, ensuring the enforceability of rights guaranteed by international treaties, even in the face of non-justiciable clauses in national constitutions. It read in part: “Rules relating to exhaustion of local remedies are usually based on Treaty provisions granting jurisdiction to courts, and it is a rule of admissibility, and not necessarily jurisdiction. Recall Sir, that Protocol A/P.1/7/79 on the court of Justice adopted in Abuja on 6th July, 1991 was reviewed essentially to enable the court enforce fundamental rights as a court of first instance. This is response to the failures of member states in the dispensation and enforcement of the internationally guaranteed rights and the glaring prospects of a regional court triumphing over the weakness of national human rights systems. It must be noted that the specie of rights enforced by the court transcends the generation of rights contained in domestic courts.
“Note further that the problem of enforcement is a function of the lack of will and disinclination of the states to accord the court the recognition it deserves. The case of CHUDE MBAH V THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA, SUIT NO. ECW/CCJ/JUD//30/18; and AMBASSADOR ALEX SAAB MORAN V CAPE VERDE, SUIT NO ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/21 readily come to mind here, and crystallise this position.” Ogwuche, however, proposed alternative measures to enhance compliance with ECOWAS court decisions, such as amending protocols or ratifying the Revised ECOWAS Treaty at the national level, warning against unilateral alterations to the court’s jurisdiction by member states, emphasising the court’s mandate to protect the rights of community citizens. He warned of potential international legal action if proposed changes to the ECOWAS court’s jurisdiction proceed, vowing to seek redress and protection for community citizens affected by such alterations. “Take notice that if the Authority of the Heads of States and Governments are minded to go ahead with this strategically ruinous proposal, then we shall have no other alternative than to approach or proceed to the appropriate international judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative fora to seek provisional measures, redress and protection for the citizens of the community against such abridgement of their fundamental rights by community members,” he added.
