The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has ruled against a suit challenging Nigeria’s geopolitical structure, stating that the country did not breach any regional or international human rights laws.
In Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/32/23, a Nigerian non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in Switzerland argued that the federal government’s failure to establish a sixth state in the Southeast constituted discrimination.
The organisation claimed that this imbalance deprived the region of critical developmental benefits, including infrastructure, revenue allocation, and employment opportunities, in violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, in a unanimous decision, the court rejected these claims, ruling that there was no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.
It emphasized that the creation of states within Nigeria is a constitutional issue under the government’s authority and that the Southeast already has sufficient representation in the country’s governance structure.
A statement sent to our correspondent’s email on Tuesday detailed the ruling, stating, “In its reasoned judgment, the Court held that the creation of states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria falls within the constitutional prerogative of the Respondent State.”
The court further ruled that “The Southeast zone maintains sufficient representation within Nigeria’s governance structure, and the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect in the current geopolitical arrangement.”
Additionally, the court determined that the NGO had failed to establish that the absence of a sixth state was directly responsible for developmental challenges in the region. It stated, “The mere creation of an additional state does not necessarily guarantee development outcomes, and the Applicant failed to establish a causal link between the absence of a sixth state and alleged violations of the right to development.”
Moreover, a second applicant, another Switzerland-based NGO, was removed from the case due to a lack of jurisdictional standing.
The ruling concluded, “The Court therefore concluded that the Respondent State had not violated its obligations under Article 19 or Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, nor under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
