Oluwatimilehin Adebayo’s right to be free from torture was violated, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice has ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to pay him ₦5 million.
The court ordered the Nigerian government to investigate the torture Adebayo endured as quickly, impartially, and effectively as possible and to file charges against those responsible in its verdict, which was delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki and sent to our correspondent on Thursday.
In a complaint filed under the ECW/CCJ/APP/47/23, Adebayo claimed that Ogun State police had severely tortured him, including shackling his limbs to a pole and beating him with an axe handle.
In addition to physical suffering, including scrotal damage, he said that the incident caused him significant psychological distress.
The Nigerian government contested the court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the issue was either pending or had already been adjudicated in a Nigerian court and that it was submitted outside the three-year statute of limitations allowed by the court’s rules.
However, claiming its authority to consider human rights matters, the ECOWAS Court rejected the preliminary objections. “Cases alleging human rights abuses are not subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 9(3)(b) of the Court’s Protocol,” Justice Atoki explained.
The court determined that the police officers’ acts violated Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has ratified, by amounting to torture.
The Court further stated that the purpose of the torture was to force Mr. Adebayo to sign a pre-written statement. As a result, it mandated that the Federal Republic of Nigeria compensate the applicant for the infringement of his right to be free from torture with ₦5 million.
Additionally, it mandated that Nigeria look into the torture as soon as possible, impartially, and effectively, and bring charges against those involved.
Noting that there was no proof the applicant had formally reported the abuse to the appropriate authorities, the court rejected the argument that the applicant’s right to a remedy had been infringed.