252/02 : Stephen O. Aigbe / Nigeria
Summary of Facts
1. The complaint is filed by Stephen O. Aigbe, Master Warrant Officer (MWO) in the Nigerian Army.
th
2. The complaint details the mistreatment of the Complainant by the Nigerian Army. On 17 January
1996, the Complainant claims that he was removed from his office, arbitrarily detained, and accused of
th
th
trying to overthrow General Abacha. On 12 April 1996 and 12 September 1996, he was arraigned on
12 counts of mutiny, a capital charge. He alleges that despite certain authorities’ observations that the
charges were false, he was not acquitted and the charges are still pending in a faulty trial process.
The “rule of laws [sic] and court procedures’ should have been “followed and exhausted” by officials
before “a Judge takes far reaching decisions on any matter”. According to the Complainant, the
proceedings violated the rule of law by not following armed forces regulations, which call for
investigation and then court martial.
3. The Complainant also alleges several violations in relation to his terms of military service. He
alleges that “several colleagues burgled his barracks” and despite his complaint to the relevant
authority, his case was never investigated. In addition, he was denied living accommodations in the
barracks for two years and was denied “the right to reach [his] pay point since July 1999” and to take
his leave for six years.
4. The Complainant also claims he faces death threats from “subordinate soldiers and the affluent
Generals. He claims“harassment, intimidation, humiliation, embarrassment, discrimination, annihilation
and threats to [his] life”. In addition to death threats, he alleges daily occurrences of “other acts of
organised open intimidation [by soldiers and generals]”.
5. He alleges that he has sought redress before several authorities, pursuant to Armed Forces
Decree No. 105 of 1993, but certain officers were obstructing his access to justice. Despite his
detailed submissions, the authorities have failed to provide adequate redress for his grievances and
have bluntly refused to give him ‘audience at any level’, violating military and constitutional procedure.
He claims that bribery played a role in keeping his case from being heard.
6. He further alleges that his family has been involved in occult practices and that members of the
military, who are also involved, conspired against him. He notes that he wrote “so many petitions and
protest letters to the Nigerian Army Council”and to the Oputa Panel.
Complaint
7. The Complainant alleges violations of Articles 4 ,5, 6, and 7(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the [African]
Charter.
8. In his prayer for redress, the Complainant requests that the African Commission:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intervene quickly to save him and his family from “the risk of assassination or extra-judicial
killing or torture to death”;
Help restore contact with his children after “full and impartial investigations into all allegations
of state agents in his separation [from his children], cult acts and practices for government by
[his] children and [his] legal wife”;
Write to the Nigerian Attorney General and Minister of Justice to request an investigation into
the mutiny allegations that he faces;
Call for an independent, impartial and public investigation into the burgling of his barracks;
Call for a probe into the “reallocation of [his] motorcycle loan to another soldier”;
Assist him in seeking asylum outside Nigeria since he faces continuous persecution there; and
Send him 10,000 Naira to enable him to eat.
Procedure
th
9. The undated complaint was received at the Secretariat on 14 June 2002 by mail.
th
10. On 24 July 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant informing him that the complaint was
nd
registered and that it will be considered at the African Commission’s 32 Ordinary Session, which was
th
scheduled to take place from 17 to 31st October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia.
nd
th
rd
11. At its 32 Ordinary Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
African Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized thereof.
th
12. On 4 November 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the parties to inform them of this decision and
rd
requested them to forward their submissions on admissibility before the 33 Ordinary Session of the
African Commission.
rd
th
th
13. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African
Commission considered this communication and declared it inadmissible.
Law
Admissibility
14. Article 56.5 of the African Charter requires that “a communication be introduced subsequent to
exhaustion of local remedies, if they exist, unless it is obvious to the Commission that the procedure
for such recourse is abnormally prolonged”.
15. The Complainant had alleged that he sought redress before ‘several authorities’. The African
Commission has no indication in the file before it that there was any proceeding before the domestic
courts on the matter.
16. The Complainant has, despite repeated requests, however, not furnished his submissions on
admissibility, especially on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Holding
For these reasons, and in accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the African Commission,
Declares this communication inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of local remedies.
rd
Taken at the 33 Ordinary Session in Niamey, Niger, May 2003.