ECOWAS Court Dismisses Human Rights Violation Claims in Case of Priestess Lovina Amina Adonor Against Nigeria

The Applicant, Lovina Amina Adonor, a Nigerian citizen and self-identified Priestess, brought claims against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, citing violations of her right to propagate her religion, the right to security, and the right to own property without discrimination. She based her claims on obligations under ECOWAS basic texts and international human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

According to the Applicant, her shrine was attacked and vandalized by private individuals, and she was forced to flee the community due to threats against her life. She alleged that Nigerian authorities failed to provide adequate protection, investigate her complaints, or address the destruction of her religious materials and property. 

In the judgment delivered by Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma, Judge Rapporteur, the Court, after reviewing the submissions from both parties, affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it pertained to alleged human rights violations within an ECOWAS Member State. It also declared the application admissible, finding that the Applicant had sufficiently demonstrated her victim status and met the necessary procedural requirements.

Meanwhile, the Court assessed the claims under various human rights provisions and found that the Applicant failed to establish a direct connection between the alleged violations and the Nigerian government or its agents, arguing that the Respondent had taken steps to investigate the complaints, and the individuals responsible for the alleged acts were private citizens who had been detained and later released after due process.

Additionally, the Applicant’s claims under Article 3, 6, 12, 14, and 21 of the ACHPR were dismissed by the Court for lack of sufficient facts and evidence to warrant relief sought thereunder.

Furthermore, the Court found that National laws, such as Section 43 of the Nigerian Constitution are outside of the Court competence.

Given the dismissal of the Applicant’s claims, the Court declined to grant reparations or an order for perpetual injunction and ruled that both parties would bear their own costs.

The three-member panel of the Court were Honourable Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (presiding judge), Honourable Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (judge rapporteur), and Honourable Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Panel member).