The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, has dismissed a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, challenging Nigeria’s public borrowing practices. The court ruled that the organisation failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the country’s debt accumulation had resulted in violations of the socio-economic rights of Nigerians.
In a judgment delivered in Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/05/22, the regional court held that while concerns over the impact of government economic policies on human rights fall within its jurisdiction, allegations of rights violations must be supported by concrete legal and factual evidence.
SERAP had approached the court, alleging that Nigeria’s persistent and allegedly unsustainable borrowing had created a huge public debt burden. It argued that this had weakened the government’s capacity to provide essential public services, including healthcare, education, and access to clean water. According to the organisation, the growing debt profile had disproportionately affected vulnerable and marginalised citizens and amounted to violations of rights guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria denied the allegations and urged the court to dismiss the case.
In its decision, the court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of its Protocol, noting that claims relating to the impact of state policies on protected human rights fall within its human rights mandate. It also declared the application admissible and recognised SERAP’s status as a public interest litigant, observing that the case was instituted on behalf of Nigerians.
However, on the substance of the case, the court found significant gaps in the applicant’s arguments. It held that although SERAP presented statistical information on Nigeria’s external and domestic debt and highlighted the economic hardship allegedly experienced by citizens, it failed to identify the specific rights that had been violated. The court said SERAP also did not define the corresponding legal obligations of the Nigerian government, or establish a direct causal relationship between the borrowing policies and the alleged violations.
The court further noted that the applicant did not provide concrete evidence identifying particular communities or groups of persons that had suffered rights violations as a direct consequence of the government’s borrowing practices.
Describing the application as consisting largely of broad economic and political grievances, the court ruled that it did not satisfy the evidentiary standards required in human rights litigation before the regional tribunal.
Consequently, the court held that the alleged human rights violations arising from Nigeria’s borrowing policy had not been substantiated in law and in fact, and dismissed the application in its entirety.
The judgment was delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma, who presided over the matter, Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara, and Justice Edward Amoako Asante, who served as Judge Rapporteur.
