The ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed an application by the Federal Republic of Nigeria seeking a revision of its earlier judgment in the prominent human rights case of Mr. Gregory J. Todd against the Nigerian state.
The court, in a ruling found Nigeria’s application to be without merit and an abuse of its post-judgment processes.
The court therefore ordered the nation to finally comply with the initial verdict, which included the payment of damages to Mr. Todd.
The original judgment, delivered on November 6, 2023, under case number ECW/CCJ/JUD/41/23, found Nigeria in breach of Mr. Gregory Todd’s fundamental freedom of movement.
This violation stemmed from what the court deemed an unreasonable and arbitrary seizure of his passport by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Consequently, the court had ordered Nigeria to pay ten thousand US dollars ($10,000) to Mr. Todd as damages, while dismissing all other claims he had presented.
Nigeria’s subsequent application for a revision of this judgment, filed under Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/56/21/REV, was predicated on Articles 92 and 93 of the Court’s Rules. The federal government asserted the discovery of “new facts” on 5th April 2024, after the initial judgment had been handed down.
However, in a curious turn, instead of presenting these purported new facts and their supporting evidence, Nigeria’s legal team advanced three points of law as the basis for their request for revision.
These arguments included contentions that the ECOWAS Court had exceeded its legal powers by recognizing a foreign national’s human rights application under Article 10(d) of its Protocol, that it had improperly assumed appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Nigerian domestic courts by hearing Mr. Todd’s human rights application, and that the matter was inadmissible given it had allegedly been conclusively determined by the Federal High Court of Abuja, thereby invoking the doctrine of res judicata.
Upon reviewing the revision application, the judicial panel affirmed its jurisdiction to consider such requests under Article 27 of the Court’s Protocol (as amended), which empowers the court to review judgments upon the discovery of new facts of a decisive nature.
However, the court unequivocally held that Nigeria’s application for revision was inadmissible. The panel determined that the grounds outlined by Nigeria did not, in fact, constitute “new facts” within the meaning of Article 27.
Critically, the court noted that all the issues raised in the revision application had already been thoroughly canvassed by Nigeria during the original proceedings and were explicitly addressed in the judgment delivered on November 6, 2023.
In a strong rebuke, the court concluded that the request for revision lacked any legal basis, was inadmissible under Article 27 of the Protocol of the Court (as amended), and amounted to an abuse of the court’s established post-judgment procedures. Consequently, the application for revision was dismissed in its entirety.
The court’s decision, read by the panel comprising Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves as Presiding Judge, Justice Gberi-be Ouattara as a Member, and Justice Edward Amoako Asante as the Judge Rapporteur, not only reaffirmed its jurisdiction but also underscored the inadmissibility of Nigeria’s plea for revision.
More importantly, it ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to immediately comply with the previous judgment, including the payment of damages awarded against it, and further directed Nigeria to bear all costs incurred by Mr. Gregory Todd in relation to the application for revision.
