The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS on 15 May 2026 dismissed an application with suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/21/25 in which the Applicant alleged violations of his rights to fair hearing and participation in governance arising from presidential election litigation.
The Court held that the Applicant, High Chief Ambrose Owuru failed to establish, with credible and sufficient evidence, that his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) had been violated by the Respondent State, Nigeria.
Case Background
The Applicant – Chief Ambrose Albert Owuru, National Chairman and leader of the Hope Democratic Party, one of Nigeria’s political parties, alleged that he was unlawfully deprived of victory in the 2023 presidential election of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and was consequently denied the opportunity to be sworn in as the constitutional winner of the election.
He contended that he initiated proceedings before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2023 challenging the election outcome and related decisions. He averred that although pleadings had been exchanged and issues joined between the parties, the Supreme Court failed to hear and determine both his substantive appeal and his application for summary judgment. He further alleged that his appeal was dismissed without affording him a hearing and in circumstances marked by procedural irregularities.
The Applicant also maintained that despite the reconstitution of the judicial panel following his petition to relevant judicial authorities, the newly constituted panel equally failed to address the substantive issues raised in his appeal. He argued that these cumulative acts amounted to a denial of justice and violated his rights to fair hearing and participation in the governance of his country guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The Respondent denied all allegations and maintained that the Applicant was neither the winner of the presidential election nor unlawfully deprived of any electoral mandate. It further denied that the Applicant was denied access to justice or subjected to any violation of his constitutional or legal rights.
The Respondent contended that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were conducted in accordance with applicable laws and procedural rules and that the Applicant voluntarily withdrew his appeal after being afforded the opportunity to pursue his claims. It therefore argued that the Applicant could not allege denial of fair hearing in proceedings he elected not to continue. It further submitted that the Applicant failed to provide credible evidence in support of the alleged violations and urged the Court to dismiss the application in its entirety.
Court Findings
The Court noted that under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol, it has jurisdiction to determine cases involving allegations of human rights violations occurring within Member States. It observed that the Applicant’s complaints concerned the alleged violation of his right to fair hearing and failure to determine his appeal on the merits, rather than a challenge to the correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court declared that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter and found the application admissible.
On the request for interim measures, the Court found no imminent or continuing harm warranting urgent intervention. It observed that the interim reliefs sought would require examining the substantive issues before the Court, and therefore dismissed the application for interim measures.
On the merits, the Court noted that the evidence before it was insufficient to establish a denial of fair hearing. It observed that following the Applicant’s complaints, a new panel was constituted and proceedings rescheduled, thereby affording him an additional opportunity to pursue his case.
Regarding the alleged violation of the right to participate in governance under Article 13 of the African Charter, the Court reiterated that it does not exercise jurisdiction over electoral disputes, but rather on human rights violations arising from it. The Court noted that the Applicant failed to provide credible and verifiable evidence demonstrating that he won the presidential election or that he had been unlawfully excluded from participation in governance within the provision of Article 13 of the ACHPR.
Court Decision
Consequently, the Court held that the Applicant failed to establish violations of his rights under Articles 7 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The Court accordingly:
* Declared that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application;
* Declared the application admissible;
* Dismissed the application for interim measures for lack of merit;
* Held that the Applicant failed to establish a violation of his right to fair hearing under Article 7 of the African Charter;
* Held that the Applicant failed to establish a violation of his right to participate in the government of his country under Article 13 of the African Charter;
* Dismissed all reliefs sought by the Applicant; and
* Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Judicial Panel
The judgment was delivered by a panel comprising:
* Hon Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge)
* Hon Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Judge Rapporteur)
* Hon Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Member)
GATMASH NEWS
…News That Drives Impact
For advert placements and business inquiries, kindly reach us via:
📧 Email: [email protected]
📞 Tel/WhatsApp: +234 (0) 807 202 2024
We value your voice! Share your stories, eyewitness reports, and contributions with us anytime:
📲 SMS/WhatsApp: +234 (0) 807 202 2024
📧 Email: [email protected]
Visit us online: https://gatmash.com
