THE June 12, 1993, pro-democracy struggle in Nigeria is widely remembered for the resistance to military rule and the eventual transition to civilian governance. However, dominant narratives often overlook two critical aspects: the foundational role of the Campaign for Democracy (CD) and ... June 12 Struggle’s international human rights litigation in a U.S. court which remains a benchmark for assessing access to justice in weak legal systems through foreign courts.
The National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) was established in May 1994 largely by politicians who supported Chief Abiola’s plan to claim his mandate. While NADECO is frequently credited for the later stages of the struggle, it was the CD that initiated and sustained grassroots mobilisation from the outset, keeping the momentum alive until the Joint Action Committee of Nigeria was formed and led by Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN. Their contributions remain underrecognised in mainstream historical accounts.
Equally overlooked is the international legal case filed against General Abubakar for human rights violations by the military junta. Though he is often commended for facilitating the 1999 civilian transition, the case against him represents more than a legal challenge: it is a crucial part of Nigeria’s democratization story and the global campaign to end impunity and authoritarianism.
Acknowledging these neglected dimensions is essential to understanding the full scope of the June 12 legacy and reinforcing the global principles of justice and democratic accountability. Thus,
Abiola v. Abubakar or Enahoro V Abubakar has become a leading authority in global legal discussions involving international law, particularly in human rights and universal jurisdiction. It underscores the evolving concept of universal jurisdiction, where certain crimes (e.g., torture, extrajudicial killings) are considered so serious that they can be tried anywhere.
This paper therefore, explores the intersection of Nigeria’s June 12 democratic struggle and transnational human rights litigation through the lens of the case brought before a U.S. federal court. It is also an attempt to present an analysis of the litigation arising from the brutal detention and death of the winner of the 1993 Presidential election in Nigeria, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, the wrongful death of his wife, Kudirat Abiola as well as the unlawful detention of Chief Anthony Enahoro and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo.
A related article entitled: “The Docking of the Nigerian Legal System in the U.S” by Funke Aboyade (published in This Day of May 9, 2006), gave a vivid analysis of the case that tested the limits of international jurisdiction, human rights accountability, and the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial system.
In February 2001, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar traveled to Chicago ostensibly to deliver a public lecture at Chicago State University (CSU). While prodemocracy activists led by Omoyele Sowore and several other US based Nigerian activists trooped to the venue of the program to prevent the lecture from taking place, some notable members of the Nigerian Pro-Democracy Network (NPDN) led by Prof. Eddie Oparaoji, Dr. Kienuwa Obaseki and Dr. Kofi Egbo as well as National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) chieftains, Chief Anthony Enahoro and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo including Hafsat Abiola – Costello (daughter of M.K.O. Abiola).
The Plaintiff’s lawyer who was also a member of the NPDN and NADECO, Kayode Oladele saw a unique opportunity to establish personal jurisdiction under U.S. procedural rules over Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar since the international human rights violation case they wanted to file against him and Gen. Ibrahim Babangida whom they thought would be accompanying Gen. Abubakar to the US for the program required defendants to be properly served within U.S. jurisdiction. To them, Gen. Abubakar’s physical presence in Chicago, Illinois became legally significant.
While Gen. Abubakar was comfortably seated in the hall and exchanging pleasantries with other guests, the process server, who also disguised like a guest entered the venue and handed over the Court processes to him. Before Gen. Abubakar knew what was giving to him, the process server took his pictures with the Summons and Complaints in his hands and immediately dashed out of the venue. That was how General Abdulsalami Abubakar found himself at the center of an unexpected legal storm. He became subject to U.S. jurisdiction, enabling the case to proceed – one that would unfold not in a courtroom in Nigeria, but in Chicago, Illinois in a protracted litigation that would take about seven years to resolve.
Writing on the unlikely venue, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago summarized it as follows: “A courtroom in Chicago, one would think, is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. It sounds like the sort of fare that would be heard in a courtroom on the African continent. But this case ended up in Chicago, and that leads us to consider the claims of seven Nigerian citizens against a Nigerian General over alleged torture and murder in Nigeria”.
The plaintiffs and Complainants, Hafsat Abiola, Chief Anthony Enahoro, and Dr. Arthur Nwankwo initially filed the lawsuit against former Nigerian Heads of State, General Ibrahim Babangida and General Abdusalami Abdulsalami Abubakar but the case against Babangida was later dropped because Babangida could not be served in the US. He did not make the trip.
In the Complaint, they alleged wrongful death, torture, arbitrary detention, and inhumane treatment ostensibly orchestrated by the Military during the regimes of Generals Babangida, Sani Abacha and Abubakar.
The complaint further alleged that the Nigerian regime under General Abacha maintained a “hit squad” targeting pro-democracy activists, with M.K.O. Abiola and his wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, among its casualties. Abiola died in military custody under suspicious circumstances, and Kudirat was assassinated in 1996. The plaintiffs contended that the Nigerian legal system was incapable of holding the perpetrators accountable or delivering justice, thus justifying resort to U.S. jurisdiction under the relevant US laws, the Alien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1350) and Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA).
In order to support their Claim, the Plaintiffs paraded a long list of witnesses which included President Bola Tinubu, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Prof.Wole Soyinka, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (who was initially listed as a co-Plaintiff but later dropped because he couldn’t attend his deposition as required by the Court) and me amongst others.
Originally enacted in 1789, the ATCA confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts over legal actions filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law while the Torture Victim Protection Act ( TVPA 1991) further codifies a civil cause of action for victims of torture and extrajudicial killing by individuals acting under authority of a foreign government.
In order to defend Gen. Abubakar, the Nigerian government hired a team of defense lawyers led by Kevin B. Duckworth of the law firm of Jenner & Block, regarded as one of the topmost law firms in the US and a US based Nigerian lawyer, Mr. Ephraim Ngwuonye. The plaintiffs lawyers were led by a prodemocracy activist , Kayode Oladele who later became a member of the Nigerian House of Representatives, assisted by Austin Agomuoh and Akin Ogunlola.
The US government represented by the US Department of Justice also entered an appearance and filed a statement of interest (at the Court of Appeals).
Abubakar filed a motion to dismiss raising two key defenses: (i.) Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — arguing, among other things, that his alleged acts fell outside the court’s jurisdiction under the TVPA and ATCA without exhaustion of Nigerian domestic remedies and (II.) Sovereign or head-of-state immunity, claiming he could not be sued in U.S. courts under the principle of Sovereign immunity.
The District Court Judge rejected these defenses and also noted that the US State Department had not intervened to suggest immunity for General Abubakar, thus allowing the case to proceed to trial.
General Abubakar subsequently appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the U.S. government, through a Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice, urged caution in allowing foreign officials to be sued for acts conducted in their official capacities. However, the US Department of Justice did not oppose the court’s jurisdiction. The intervention only reflected U.S. concerns about the potential foreign policy implications of allowing human rights suits against foreign heads of state but acknowledged the legitimacy of the statutory framework under ATCA and TVPA. It did not provide any serious defense in favor of Abubakar.
The Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals decision, Abubakar v. Abiola (No. 03‑3089) addressed Gen. Abubakar’s immunity defense under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court held individuals do not qualify for FSIA protection, hence, Gen. Abubakar could be sued in his personal capacity despite being a former head of state. Separately, the Court affirmed that he could not rely on sovereign immunity for acts of torture and extrajudicial killing. It also clarified that TVPA claims require domestic exhaustion. The Court of Appeals further ruled that exhaustion of remedies under TVPA is a question of fact for the judge, not a jury, which must be addressed before the case moved forward . As a result, the Court of Appeals remitted the case back to the lower court to determine whether Abiola had satisfied exhaustion requirements.
Abubakar filed a stay of proceedings before the District Court and further appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the US Supreme Court through a Petition for Certiorari (under the US Constitution, appeal to the Supreme Court is not by right) but his Petition for Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the District Court for evidentiary hearing in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals as required by the Torture Victims Protection Act.
To resolve this on remission , the presiding Judge, Matthew F. Kennelly convened a rare evidentiary hearing, effectively placing the Nigerian judiciary itself on trial. Thus, an evidentiary hearing was conducted by Judge Kennelly to assess the adequacy, availability, and effectiveness of Nigeria’s judicial remedies in this specific context. This puts the Nigeria’s legal system on trial in a global arena, exposing both its strengths and deep flaws. It also raised questions about National legal sovereignty vs. international accountability and whether international justice mechanisms should fill gaps left by compromised or dysfunctional domestic legal institutions.
It also echoed broader themes from international law, such as the universal jurisdiction concept and the rise of transnational justice, where violators cannot hide behind borders or national immunity.
At the Evidentiary Hearing, two expert witnesses (Femi Falana for the Plaintiffs and Adebayo Adaralegbe for the defendant) testified in open Court while a Nigerian-US legal consultant, Emmanuel Ogebe gave a sworn deposition on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Dr. Adebayo Adaralegbe of Babalakin & Co testifying for the defense, argued that the Nigerian judiciary had demonstrated independence and effectiveness, citing landmark human rights cases and the domestication of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. During cross examination, Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kayode Oladele scrutinized Adebayo Adaralegbe’s public writings on judicial integrity, contrasting them sharply with recorded cases of corruption and executive meddling, including the deposition by another plaintiff’s expert, Emmanuel Ogebe that “corruption is a way of life in the Nigerian Judiciary.”
Oladele also brought attention to the Nigerian Bar Association’s boycott to protest government interference, and the Academic Staff Union of Universities’ strike in Ilorin, both symptomatic of government trampling on institutional autonomy. He cross-examined Adaralegbe on high-profile cases where courageous judges were stripped of security, transferred, or removed, narrowing the judiciary’s ability to rule independently. on Habeas Corpus Suppression: Oladele’s cross examination delved into how mechanisms like habeas corpus were overridden during military rule through decrees, emphasizing that legal tools were stripped or rendered ineffective when politically inconvenient.
Finally, he pressed Adaralegbe on why his doctoral work and legal commentaries omitted well-documented judicial failures—suggesting a discrepancy between theoretical assurances and lived realities.He also reminded Dr. Adaralegbe of the controversial recusal of Justices in MKO Abiola’s original habeas corpus appeal in the Supreme Court—a move widely viewed as politically motivated.
In short, Oladele’s cross examination revealed that Adaralegbe’s portrayal of Nigerian courts was overly idealized.
In my testimony, I interpreted Nigerian laws and explained how international human rights norms were being violated by various military junta. I informed the court that I had personal experience with the Nigerian government’s repression, having been detained and persecuted several times during the military rule. I further told the Court that with my extensive knowledge of the treatment of political detainees, including Chief M.K.O. Abiola, whose prolonged detention and eventual death were central to this particular case, human rights violation, detention and repression by the military were rampant throughout the period under review.
My evidence provided firsthand insights into how state power was abused by the military regime under which Abiola was held.