SERAP sued the Nigerian government at the ECOWAS Court, alleging persistent and unsustainable borrowing by the government, which it said resulted in a substantial public debt burden that undermined the State’s capacity to provide essential public services.
The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, has delivered its judgment in case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/05/22 brought by Incorporated Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) challenging the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s public borrowing. The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Applicant, SERAP failed to provide sufficient proof (legal and factual) to substantiate its claims that the Respondent’s alleged excessive and unsustainable borrowing resulted in violations of the socio-economic rights of Nigerians.
The Applicant, the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), instituted proceedings before the Court alleging that the Government of Nigeria had engaged in persistent and unsustainable borrowing, resulting in a substantial public debt burden that undermined the State’s capacity to provide essential public services, including healthcare, education, and access to clean water.
According to SERAP, the Respondent’s public borrowing adversely affected the enjoyment of socio-economic rights by vulnerable and marginalised Nigerians and constituted violations of rights guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a party.
SERAP urged the Court to declare that Nigeria’s borrowing practices and their alleged economic consequences violated the rights of Nigerians to health, education, and economic and social development.
The Respondent, Federal Republic of Nigeria, denied the allegations and urged the Court to dismiss the application.
The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Court’s Protocol, noting that the application alleged violations of human rights protected under regional and international human rights instruments. It held that allegations concerning the impact of State economic policies on protected human rights fall within its human rights mandate.
On admissibility, the Court found that the Applicant satisfied the requirements of Article 10(d) of the Protocol of the Court. It recognised SERAP’s status as a public interest litigant, observing that the application sought reliefs for the benefit of the Nigerian public.
On the merits, however, the Court found that SERAP failed to meet the standard of proof required in human rights litigation. While the application presented statistical information concerning Nigeria’s external and domestic debt and described the economic hardship allegedly experienced by citizens, it did not identify the specific human rights alleged to have been violated, define the corresponding legal obligations of the Respondent, or demonstrate how the borrowing policy directly resulted in violations of those rights.
The Court further observed that the Applicant did not provide concrete evidence identifying particular communities or identifiable groups of persons who had suffered the alleged violations as a consequence of the Respondent’s borrowing practices.
The Court concluded that the application consisted primarily of general economic and political grievances that did not satisfy the legal and evidentiary standards established in its jurisprudence for proving human rights violations.
The Court:
v Declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the application;
v Declared the application admissible;
v Held that the Applicant failed to substantiate, in law and in fact, the alleged human rights violations arising from Nigeria’s borrowing policy, and
v Dismissed the application in its entirety.
The judgment was delivered by a panel comprising:
• Hon Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma – Presiding
• Hon Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara – Member
• Hon Justice Edward Amoako Asante – Judge Rapporteur
