The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, affirming its jurisdiction to hear a human rights suit instituted by activist Musa Ali Maishanu.
In a ruling delivered virtually in open court in Abuja on January 30, 2026, the court held that Maishanu’s application was admissible and ripe for substantive hearing. The decision was issued under Application No. ECW/CCJ/APP/11/25 (Ruling No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/01/26).
The three-member panel, led by Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, alongside Justices Sengu Mohamed Koroma and Edward Amoako Asante, ruled that an allegation of human rights violations alone is sufficient to activate the court’s jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Court Protocol, as amended.
Maishanu, a resident of Adamawa State and Regional Coordinator of the Global Pan-Africanism Network (G-PAN) in Nigeria’s North-East, alleges that he was unlawfully arrested on October 18, 2022, by operatives of the Department of State Services in Gombe State. He claims he was detained, subjected to degrading treatment, and prosecuted on charges of criminal intimidation and conspiracy.
According to court filings, Maishanu was arraigned on October 21, 2022, granted bail on October 26, 2022, and only obtained substantial relief on July 15, 2024, when the Gombe State High Court, sitting on appeal, lifted restrictions imposed on him. He contends that the actions against him were malicious and violated his rights to personal liberty, dignity, and freedom of movement.
The activist is seeking ₦5 billion in general damages for alleged unlawful arrest, detention, and torture; ₦100 million in special damages for malicious prosecution; and a public apology from the Nigerian government.
The Federal Government, represented by counsel Maimuna Lami Shiru, argued that the case was criminal in nature and within the exclusive jurisdiction of Nigerian courts. It also challenged the competence of the ECOWAS Court to hear the matter.
In dismissing the objection, the court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined by the applicant’s claims, not by their eventual proof. It found that Maishanu’s allegations fall squarely within its human rights mandate and ordered the case to proceed to full hearing, with costs to be determined in the final judgment.
