To take class action, representative and impact legal proceedings against unjust laws and policies and if necessary provide legal advice and assistance to victims of human rights abuse whose cause may represent a larger societal problem, particularly women, children, workers and other disadvantaged persons.

From our experiences, we observe that most detainees in our prison custody are awaiting trail and in most cases for as much as 8-10 years and above.  The reluctance on the part of the state to prosecute these suspects for such a long period is an indication that the suspects did not actually commit the alleged offence under which they were clamped into detention, otherwise, if there is a prima facie case against the suspects, their trial would have commenced timeously. CRP thus considers this as a prime area of enforcing fundamental human rights in our society. 

CRP also embarks on Impact litigation/class action.  In this respect CRP seeks to influence government policy decisions and enactments by challenging military decrees whose provisions infringes on human rights standards and norms.  It also includes taking up class actions on behalf of a group of people who fall victims of human rights abuses. 

SELECTED CASES
Felix Omoniyodo  vs. Alhaji Sani Daura
Richard Ade  vs. Hon. Minister of Internal Affairs
Alhaji Otaogbaye vs. Ugeh Meshach
Julius Berger  vs.  Nkechi Nnadozie
Trustee of CRP vs. A.G. Lagos State
Cosmas Opara vs. Union Bank of Nigeria

See >>Other cases

In his ruling delivered on March 21st 2002, the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their servants, privies or persons acting for or on their behalf from further interfering with the applicants enjoyment of their fundamental right to liberty, dignity of human persons, property and freedom of movement.
 

In the judgment delivered on July 23 2002, Justice Jega declared that his purported dismissal from service was invalid, as it was done in violation of his right to fair hearing. While making a declaration as to his reinstatement, he ordered that all the entitlements and promotions, which were denied him as a result of his purported dismissal, should be given due recognition and the benefits accruing thereto, paid to him. The court equally ordered the payment to him of all outstanding salaries, allowances and other emoluments due to him from 4th June 1996 till July 23 2002

1. Whether the provision of Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Chapter 33 Laws of Lagos State 1994 which gives the arresting authority, an agency of the executive arm of government the prerogative to compel the court to remand suspects in a remand proceedings in a court without allowing the court to look into the merits of each case does not amount to a derogation of the duty which States have under Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right to guarantee the independence of the courts.

2. Whether the power to remand in custody under Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Lagos State 1994 without giving the suspect the opportunity of being heard, is valid in view of its inconsistency with Section 36 (1), (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 7 (1) (c) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right Chapter 10 Laws of Federation 1990. 

In the said Summons, CRP sought the following relief:

1. A DECLARATION that the power to remand in custody under Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Chapter 33 Laws of Lagos State 1994 makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to remand a person in a remand proceedings without giving the suspect an opportunity to be heard, when such suspect is alleged to have committed an offence which the Magistrate have no trial jurisdiction 

2. A DECLARATION that the provision of Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Chapter 33, Laws of Lagos State 1994 which gives the arresting authority, an agency of the executive arm of government the prerogative to compel the court to remand the suspect in a remand proceedings in a court without allowing the court to look into the merits of each case undermines the independence of the court and therefore invalid for being contrary with the provision of Article 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Chapter 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

3. A DECLARATION that the remand under Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Lagos State 1994 amounts to a denial of the personal liberty of an individual and the procedure of remand without hearing from the suspects falls short of the mandatory provisions of Section 36 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and Article 7 (1) (c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Chapter 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. 

4. A DECLARATION that such absence of an opportunity of being heard under Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Chapter 33 Laws of Lagos State 1994 is inconsistent with Section 36 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and Article 7 (1) (c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right and such inconsistency renders the remand under Section 236 (3) Criminal Procedure Law, Chapter 33, Laws of Lagos State 1994 invalid, unconstitutional, null and void.

5. AN ORDER OF COURT releasing the 2nd Applicant and all those remanded by Magistrates in Lagos State without trial jurisdiction by virtue of Section 236 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law Chapter 33, Laws of Lagos State 1994 from unlawful detention forthwith.

Other Cases
Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Ede and Mba
Osifowora & Ors. vs. National Universities Commission
Mogaji vs. Meshach
Nwosu vs. Hon. Minister of Internal Affairs
Udak vs. WAEC & Awolowo University
Ademola & Idowu vs. Oke
CRP vs. Babangida & Ors.
Akinola vs. Babangida & Ors.

Consequently, the security agencies like the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI), the State Security Service (SSS) and the Federal Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (FIIB) were detailed to get people to implicate their captives. People illegally detained were forced by these security agencies to sign confessional statements implicating NADECO members as being responsible for the various bomb blasts planted across the country.  Sequel to this plan, two persons, Francis Ede and Chukwuma Mba, were alleged to have collaborated with NADECO members, and to have conspired and attempted to bomb NNPC Ejigbo Depot, Lagos. They were subsequently arraigned before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal , Lagos and detained at Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison Apapa, Lagos from  September 12, 1994 until May 19, 1999 when CRP secured their release. 

During their travails, they were taken to FIIB Alagbon Close, Lagos, and made to sign confessional statements implicating themselves and some NADECO members after several rounds of torture at the hands of security agents. They informed us that one ASP Emma Ogolo, told them that the only condition by which they would be released was if they admitted that Senator Bola Tinubu had sent them to bomb the NNPC Ejigbo depot.

At the DMI, Francis Ede was tortured and his parents and brothers were arrested and detained on the order of Lt. Col. Frank Omenka for several months. He was released by the DMI only to be re-arrested by agents from Alagbon Close on September 29, 1997. 

He was taken to Ito Oke detention camp at Epe, Lagos.  Mr. Ede further informed us that, ASP Emma Ogolo caused him to be injected at the hospital and his penis has since stopped functioning. 

On May 19 1999, the tribunal chairman, Justice Tijani Abdullahi, in his judgement declared that, there was no iota of evidence to sustain any of the charges against the accused persons. He therefore ordered that both accused persons should be discharged and acquitted. After securing their release CRP arranged with an NGO for Trauma Victims Lagos to assist them and they are presently receiving medical treatment at the Centre

The Head of State thereafter in various public speeches announce that funds have been released to the National Universities Commission for the implementation of the new package. The applicants also gathered from reliable sources that some of the officials of the commission in connivance with the key functionaries of the University of Lagos are sitting on the funds. Pursuant to the leave of court to apply for an order of Mandamus, via motion ex-parte, granted the applicants, the Respondents were served with the substantive motion on notice. 

Thereafter the authorities of the University of Lagos issued a public notice that the payment of the harmonized pension package approved by the Federal Government in 1997 would commence from 30th June 1999, but that arrears of same cannot be paid until they receive sufficient funds for this purpose. Thereafter the University of Lagos implemented the package and we are proceeding with the suit on the issue of payment of the arrears.

CRP's  staff counsel, filed a Special defence and Counter-claim on behalf of the defendant (tenant), contending that the plaintiff's claim is frivolous, vexatious and constitutes an abuse of Court process and also seeking for an order restoring the defendant into possession and the payment of Examplary damages by the plaintiff to the defendant for forceful eviction.

Delivering her judgment in the open court, the Chairman of the Tribunal M.O.Folami (Mrs) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered the reinstatement of the defendant into his second room from where he was ejected forcefully by the plaintiff on the 7th of February 1999. Further the tribunal ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of N30,000:00 as examplary damages for illegal eviction. The Plaintiff was also found guilty of an offence under Section 33 (2) of the Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edict No 6 of 1997 applicable in Lagos State of Nigeria and was ordered to pay a fine of N25,000:00 or go to jail for 2 years, six months. Finally on contempt in the face of the court, the plaintiff was to pay a fine of N 2,500:00 or a jail term of one year. The fines are cummulative, while the term of imprisonment are to run concurrently.

Sequel to his illegal dismissal, and after exhausting all available means of settlement, he brought an action in the Federal High Court Lagos challenging his dismissal from service, through a CRP's Staff Counsel.

In the judgment delivered on May 8 2000, Justice Egbo-Egbo declared that his purported dismissal from service was invalid, as it was done in violation of his right to fair hearing. While making a declaration as to his reinstatement, he ordered that all the entitlements and promotions which were denied him as a result of his purported dismissal should be given due recognition and the benefits accruing thereto, paid to him. The court equally ordered the payment to him of all outstanding salaries, allowances and other emoluments due to him  from 4th July 1996 till May 8 2000.

An application exparte for leave to enforce her fundamental rights to fair hearing was filed and argued in the Lagos high Court by CRP's Staff Attorney. The exparte application for leave was granted by Mr Justice Rhodes-Vivour and the Motion on Notice was immediately filed in the Lagos High Court, seeking a declaration that since the respondent never gave the applicant an opportunity of being heard, in the allegation of examination malpractice before her result was cancelled, the applicant's rights to fair hearing was breached, and such breach renders the respondent's withdrawal and cancellation of the applicant's result in the May/June 1993 Senior Secondary Certificate Examination unconstitutional, and further an order compelling the 1st Respondent to issue the Applicant with her certificate forthwith based on the Statement of result earlier released on February 14 1994. 

When the 1st respondent was served with the Motion on Notice, they invited the applicant through CRP to pick up her Certificate. The applicant has since June 20 2000 received her Senior Secondary Certificate based on the Statement of result earlier released on February 14 1994.

In this suit, CRP's Staff Counsel applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's proceedings and the judgment delivered in Charge No RFT/12/95 on June 22 1999 praying the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and quash the said judgment for being contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (2), (6) and 3 (1) (b) of the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments, Etc.)  Decree No 62 of 1999. 

In moving the Court on this ground, the affidavit in support of the application contended that the judgment in issue was written on June 22 1999 by Justice Oke (Mrs) and delivered by her as a Judge of the Tribunal, and therefore is contrary to the provisions of Decree No 62 of 1999 which disolved the Armed Robbery Tribunal on May 28 1999 and mandated the said Tribunal to transfer all part-heard matters in which judgment had not been written as at May 28 1999 to the High Court to be tried afresh. 

While quashing the death sentence passed on the two accused persons, Justice Rhodes-Vivour of the Lagos High Court noted that it was apparent that Justice Oke was not aware of the provisions of Decree No 62 of 1999 which divested her court of power and jurisdiction to sentence the accused persons to death at the date the said judgment was written. He further directed that both the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution and that of the Federation should be notified of the ruling and that a fresh information be filed in the High Court based on the same facts with which the accused persons were prosecuted in the Robbery Tribunal.

It is worthy of note that after one month of service of the ruling of the High Court on Director of Public Prosecution Federal and that of Lagos State, no information has been filed in the High Court charging the suspects with armed robbery. In the circumstance, CRP is presently preparing an application to admit the suspects to bail. 

CRP got an order of interim Injunction which restrained the Respondents from executing the 7 convicted persons. Upon notification, the respondents by way of preliminary objection prayed the court to dismiss this suit for lack of Locus Standi of the Applicants (i.e. CRP) and that the court lacked jurisdiction same having been ousted by the Civil Disturbances (Special Tribunal) Decree No. 43 of 1993 and that the Applicant has no cause of action against the Respondents. 

After taking argument from counsel on both sides the court held that: 

(1).Since the Applicant has no other business than to protect human rights and the subject matter of the proceedings is the preservation of the lifes of the 7 convicted persons and there is need to preserve the application pending before the African Commission so that the decision is not rendered nugatory, it has locus standi to institute this suit. 

(2). That this case has international connection by virtue of cap. 10 which is a treaty ratified by the Nigerian Government and so long as Nigeria retains its membership of the O.A.U. cap. 10 is binding on the Federal Military Government. 

(3). That the ACHPR (Ratification and Enforcement) Act by virtue of Section 1 of Decree 55 of 1992 is also a Decree, but it is a Decree with a difference being a Decree to enable effect to be given in the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the African Charter. 

(4). Where there is conflict between Decrees, as in this case between Decree 2 of 1987, Decree 55 of 1992 n one side and cap. 10 on the other, with the former Decrees ousting the jurisdiction of this court whilst the other preserves the jurisdiction of this court, it is trite law that any Decree, Edict, Act or law which ousts the jurisdiction of the court is construed strictly and narrowly and Where the interpretation is capable of two meanings the Decree is to be interpreted in the manner which retains or preserves the jurisdiction of the court. 

(5). That African Charter preserves and saves the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate on the interpretation of the its provisions.

The Decree which is viewed as a direct response to private media condemnation of Babangida's annulment of June 12 Presidential elections, sets out certain stringent conditions to be met before a Newspaper could publish in Nigeria. These conditions includes: payment of a large amount of money by Newspaper publishers, fresh registration of all Newspapers circulating in Nigeria which registration is renewable at periodic intervals, etc. 

The Applicant sought the following reliefs in this suit: (a).A Declaration that the Newspapers Decree No. 43 of 1993 which prescribes new registration for all Newspapers circulating in Nigeria offends the Applicant's rights to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1979 Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' rights of which Nigeria is a signatory; (b). An Order suspending the operations of the said Newspapers Decree. 

The Respondents by way of preliminary objection raised the following issues for determination of the court, i.e. (I) That the court lack jurisdiction to entertain the suit; (ii) That the legislative function of the Military government can not be challenged in any court of law. They base their objections on Sections 5 & 1(2)(b)(I) of the Constitution (Suspension and modification) Act cap. 64 & the Federal  Military Government (Supremacy & Enforcement of Powers) Act cap. 131, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, respectively. 

Applicant's counsel in response to the objection argued that by the doctrine of state responsibility in international law, no state could plead its internal law as a way of circumventing its international obligations, and where there is a conflict between a domestic obligation and an international obligation as regards the provision of domestic statute, the international commitment prevails- the rule is pacta sunt servanda (solemn agreement must be kept). 

Hoponu-Wusu, J. in dismissing the objections of the respondents to the suit held as follows: (1) That the Applicant as the Chairman of the Human Rights Professional Services department of the Lagos NUJ is in a position to institute the action; (2) That the Decree No. 43 did not in any way oust the jurisdiction of the courts; (3) That since the courts have held that the African Charter is like an enactment of the Federal Government like a Decree, and by law any statute that purports to oust the jurisdiction of the courts must be construed very strictly and narrowly, it follows therefore that if there is a conflict between an enactment ousting the jurisdiction of the court (in this case Section 5 of cap. 64 & Section 1(2)(b)(I) of cap. 131) and another which does not (in this case the African Charter), the court should lean more on the one that preserves its jurisdiction. The learned trial Judge reiterated the dictum of Ogundare J.C.A that "any domestic legislation in conflict with the convention is void". It is worth mentioning that after the decision of the court that upheld the rights of the Applicant as enshrined in the Charter, the provisions of Decree No. 43 was never enforced by the Government. It was however repealed Decree No 57 of May 26 1999.