The Centre for Community Law commends the Republic of Niger and The Gambia for designating their respective competent national authority for the implementation of the decisions for the Court. It is heart-warming to note that these latest designations bring the number of States – Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and The Gambia and Togo – that have complied with the provisions of the Protocol of the Court in this regard to nine. The Centre hereby calls on the remaining six member States – Cape Verde, Benin Republic, Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, and Sierra Leone – that are yet to designate their respective competent national authority to do so without further delay. We also wish to congratulate the ECOWAS court and the peoples of the Community for the action of the two States.
Obligation to Designate
The obligation to designate competent national authority is not only a moral but also a legal one, encapsulated in article 24 of Protocol A/P.1/7/91, relating to the Community Court of Justice (as amended by Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05) as a component of the obligations that rest upon member States to enforce the judgments of the Court in accordance with its Rules of Civil Procedure. Article 24(4) of the Protocol provides that ‘[a]ll Member States shall determine the competent national authority for the purpose of recipient and processing of execution and notify the Court accordingly’.
Therefore, the six States that are yet to designate their competent national authority are in obvious violation of their international obligation under the Protocol of the Court. The point needs however be made that the designation of a competent national authority is not synonymous with the intention of the designating State to implement the judgments of the Court. Also, there is no evidence to show that the States that have not designated a competent national authority have ipso facto been refusing to implement the judgments of the court. In fact, in the 2023 International Conference organised by the court in The Gambia, it was shown by scholars that, prior to when The Gambia designated a competent national authority in May, 2023, three of the eight member States that had implemented the judgments of the court in varying degrees – Gambia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone – had not designated the authority.
In any event, the Centre for Community Law does not subscribe to any argument that diminishes the efforts of States that have designated a national authority by comparing them to States that have not designate but have nonetheless implemented some judgments of the court against them, on the basis of such implementation. Our firm view is that a State is yet in violation of its international obligation even if it decides to always implement judgments against her, if the State fails or omits to designate a competent national authority. After all, it is not that those that have designated do not at all yet enforce judgments against them. Designating a national authority is not a substitute for the actual implementation of the judgments of the court in the same way that implementation of judgments is not a substitute for the designation of a national authority.
Statistics on Implemented Judgments
The statistics on enforcement as presented by scholars in the 2023 International Conference organised by the court shows that Nigeria presently has the highest rate of implementation of the judgments of the court, though it is only a negligible number of the judgments against it that it has implemented. By way of emphasis, it has been shown that out of the one hundred and forty one enforceable judgments so far delivered by the court, only thirty four judgments have been implemented, leaving one hundred and seven judgments yet to be implemented. Perhaps, we should mention, understandably, given its population share of the Community, that a majority of the applications in the court is against Nigeria.
For the avoidance of doubt, the court has actually delivered a total of three hundred and forty nine judgments, of which only one hundred and forty one are enforceable judgments while two hundred and eight judgments are not enforceable.
A further Call On Violating States
The Centre for Community Law looks forward to seeing the six States that have so far failed or refused to designate a national competent authority take their community obligation and the rule of law more seriously by fulfilling their obligation in this regard. It does not tell well of any State that blocks the implementation of an international judicial decision against it; such is immoral, uncivilised and undemocratic!
@Centre for Community Law, June, 2023
