The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS on 15 May 2026 delivered its judgment in Case No ECW/CCJ/APP/05/25 brought by the Centre for Community Law on violations of rights of awaiting-trial inmates in Nigeria’s correctional facilities.

In its judgment, the Court held that the prolonged detention of a substantial number of awaiting-trial inmates and the resulting overcrowded prison conditions in Nigeria’s correctional facilities breached the rights to liberty, dignity, fair hearing, presumption of innocence and the right to be tried within a reasonable time, as well as equality before the law as guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). The Court ordered Nigeria to undertake immediate institutional and corrective measures aimed at addressing the deficiencies within its criminal justice and correctional systems.

Case Background

The Centre for Community Law, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) engaged in the promotion and enforcement of Community laws and human rights protections, initiated the action in the public interest, challenging the Respondent State’s practice of prolonged detention of accused persons awaiting trial.

Relying on official statistics published in 2024, the Applicant submitted that out of an inmate population of 79,237 persons, 26,718 were convicted inmates, while 52,519 remained awaiting trial, representing nearly 66 per cent of the prison population. The Applicant further alleged that many detainees were held for bailable offences and remained in detention for periods exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed by law.

Citing updated statistics from an official source indicating further increase, the Applicant in his reply to the Respondent’s statement of defence, argued that custodial facilities were severely overcrowded and that the continued detention of large numbers of awaiting-trial inmates imposed an excessive burden on public resources while depriving society of their economic contribution. It argued that the situation constituted violations of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 22, and 26 of the African Charter, as well as other applicable international human rights instruments.

In reaching its decision, the Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by Nigeria to challenge the legal capacity of the Centre to initiate the action.

Court Findings

In its findings, the Court noted that under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol, it has jurisdiction to determine allegations of human rights violations occurring within Member States. On admissibility, it affirmed the doctrine of actio popularis, recognising the right of individuals and organisations to institute public interest actions on behalf of identifiable groups whose rights are allegedly violated. The Court observed that the Applicant, as a duly registered non-governmental organisation, had established its legal personality and standing to initiate the matter.

On the merits, the Court noted that the Applicant produced credible and corroborated evidence, including official records and public admissions by correctional authorities. The Court further observed that the Respondent failed to rebut the evidence with any credible contrary material. Consequently, the Court noted that the prolonged detention without trial and prison overcrowding violated the rights to liberty, presumption of innocence, unequal treatment before the law, respect for human dignity, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time of the numerous awaiting-trial inmates. It also breached the Respondent’s international obligation to adopt legislative, administrative, and institutional measures necessary to give effect to protected rights.

However, the Court found that the alleged violations of Articles 22 and 26 of the African Charter were not sufficiently established and dismissed those claims.

Court Decision

Consequently, the Court held, among other things, that:

• the Respondent State violated Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7(1)(b) and (d) of the African Charter through systemic and prolonged pre-trial detention and overcrowded prison conditions;

• the prolonged detention of awaiting-trial inmates violated the right to liberty under Article 6 of the African Charter;

• the prolonged detention regime violated the rights to the presumption of innocence and trial within a reasonable time under Article 7 of the Charter;

• overcrowded prison conditions violated the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter;

• the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of the African Charter;

Orders

Consequently, the Court:

• Directed the Respondent to establish mechanisms for periodic judicial review of cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention;

• Ordered the Respondent to introduce and implement a comprehensive prison decongestion policy, including the adoption of non-custodial measures for minor and bailable offences; and

• Ordered the Respondent, within six months, to submit a detailed compliance report to the Court, including statistical updates on the number of inmates released or tried.

The Centre’s Reaction

Professor Amos Enabulele, Executive Director of the Centre, welcomed the Court’s judgment, describing the case as one that exposes a deep structural problem within Nigeria’s custodial system.

He stressed that the Centre does not view the judgment as an indictment of Nigeria, but rather as a victory for the country, as it presents a timely opportunity to confront the longstanding suffering of prison inmates whose dignity and humanity have been diminished by decades of neglect and mismanagement of the correctional system.

Professor Enabulele also drew the attention of present-day policymakers to an uncomfortable but important reality: many policymakers of the past, who once had the authority to reform the deplorable prison conditions but failed to act, now find themselves incarcerated in the very facilities they never imagined they would enter.

He emphasised that every action taken, whether individually or collectively, ultimately serves the common good. According to him, societies thrive when people who are not directly affected by injustice nevertheless stand up and fight against it as though they themselves were victims.