The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear a human rights case filed against the Federal Republic of Nigeria by activist Musa Ali Maishanu, paving the way for a full hearing on the merits.
In a ruling delivered virtually on January 30, 2026, the three-member panel dismissed Nigeria’s preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction and declared the application admissible.
The panel was presided over by Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, with Justices Sengu Mohamed Koroma and Edward Amoako Asante as members. The court held that under Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Court Protocol, as amended, a mere allegation of human rights violation is sufficient to activate its jurisdiction.
Maishanu, a resident of Adamawa State and Regional Coordinator of the Global Pan-Africanism Network (G-PAN) in Nigeria’s North-East, alleges that he was unlawfully arrested on October 18, 2022, by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) in Gombe State.
He claims he was detained, subjected to degrading treatment, and later prosecuted on charges of criminal intimidation and conspiracy. According to his application, he was brought before a Gombe court on October 21, 2022, granted bail on October 26, 2022, and only obtained relief on July 15, 2024, when the High Court of Gombe State lifted restrictions imposed on him.
Maishanu is seeking ₦5 billion in general damages for alleged unlawful arrest and detention, ₦100 million in special damages for alleged malicious prosecution, and a public apology from the Nigerian government.
The Federal Government, represented by counsel Maimuna Lami Shiru, denied the allegations and argued that the arrest and prosecution were lawful and handled within Nigeria’s legal framework. It further contended that the matter was criminal in nature and fell under domestic court jurisdiction.
In its decision, the regional court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by the applicant’s claims. It emphasized that where an applicant alleges human rights violations within a member state, the court may assume jurisdiction without first establishing the truth of the claims.
The judges concluded that the allegations of unlawful arrest, detention, and degrading treatment fall within the court’s human rights mandate and that the matter had not been previously decided by another international tribunal.
The court therefore declared the suit admissible and ordered that it proceed to substantive hearing, with costs to be determined at final judgment.
