Oyekunle Jide v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
4. In the instant case, the Applicant came to claim the violation of his human rights, alleging that on August 1, 2024, while covering a peaceful protest, police fired tear gas at the protesters. While trying to take refuge in a safe place, the Applicant was attacked and assaulted by police officers, who also seized his mobile phone, and claimed that he was not authorized to perform the live recording of the event. The Applicant also stated that his camera was damaged and that he was detained for approximately eight hours on charges of invasion of property and participation in an illegal assembly. He was later released as a result of the intervention of FCT Police Command spokesperson Josephine Atleh.
82. First, the Court notes that the Respondent, despite alleging violence of the protest and that the Applicant was a violent protester who refused to adhere to the warnings of the Nigerian police force (who were trying to prevent the protesters from entering the Three Arms Zone), did not provide evidence to support such facts, the burden of which was on it.
83. Moreover, the Respondent’s agents in adopting the measures (the use of tear gas, arrest the Applicant while covering the above), the Respondent had the burden of justifying such restrictions
84. That is, the Respondent must be able to demonstrate that the restrictions meet the requirements of legality, necessity and that they are proportional. Where this burden is not fulfilled, this right is violated.
89. The Court therefore notes that the principle of legality has not been respected in this case.
90. Consequently, this undermines the analysis of the remaining principles, given that they are principles of cumulative verification.
91. ln this sense, the Court finds that the Respondent violated Articles 19 of the DUDH, 9 and 27 (2) of the African Charter and 19 of the ICCPR.
109. Accordingly, in view of absence of any evidence presented by the Respondent to justify that the Applicant’s detention was in accordance with national or international law, the Court finds that the Respondent violated the Applicant’s right to liberty under Articles 9(2) and (2) of the Covenant, Articles 3 and 9 of the UDHR and Article 6 of the African Charter.
c) The alleged violation of the right of the Applicant to respect for the inherent dignity of a human being and the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
142. In other words, the detailed account of the facts presented by the Applicant, supported by the documentary evidence and the video footage submitted by him, is sufficient to establish in the mind of the judge a firm conviction that, during the aforementioned demonstration on 1 August 2024, whilst the Applicant was covering a peaceful protest, the police fired tear gas at the protesters. Whilst attempting to seek refuge in a safe place, the Applicant was dragged away by police officers, who also seized his mobile phone, claiming that he was not authorised to livestream the event; he was detained for approximately eight hours, on charges of trespassing and participating in an unlawful assembly, and was subsequently released following the intervention of the spokesperson for the FCT Police Command, Josephine Adeh.
143. Such acts are humiliating and demeaning to anyone placed in the Applicant’s situation; they demonstrate a lack of respect, undermine human dignity, and give rise to feelings of fear (as alleged by the Applicant), distress or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resilience.
144. Thus, the performance of agents of order and of security regarding the Applicant constitutes “torture” in the light of Article 1 of CAT.
149. In this regard, the Court finds that the Applicant’s human right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as guaranteed by Articles 1 and 5 of the African Charter, Articles 1, 2 (1), 4, 10 and 11, 12 and 13 of the CAT, 7 and 10(1) of the ICCPR and 5 of the UDHR, cited above, has been violated by the Respondent.
204. Accordingly, having regard to the nature and diversity of the human rights infringed (freedom of expression, liberty and security, dignity and the prohibition of torture, and property rights), and taking into account the traumatic consequences for the Applicant, the Court, ruling on the basis of equity and reasonableness, awards the sum of 10 million naira as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
210. For these reasons, having convened in open court and heard both parties, the Court:
iii. Declares that the Respondent has violated the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression and to disseminate information, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9, and that it has not been demonstrated that the restrictions imposed meet the requirements set out in Article 27(2) of the African Charter.
iv. Declares that the Respondent has violated the Applicant’s right to liberty and security, in accordance with Article 6 of the African Charter, Article 9(1) of the ICCPR, and Articles 3 and 9 of the UDHR.
v. Declares that the Respondent has violated the Applicant’s right to respect for the inherent dignity of a human being and the prohibition against torture and inhuman treatment, as guaranteed by Articles 1 and 5 of the Afiican Charter, Articles 1, 2 ( 1 ), 4, 10 and 11, 12 and 13 of the CAT, 7 and 10(1) of the ICCPR and 5 of the UDHR.
vi. Declares that the Respondent has violated the Applicant’s right to property, as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Afiican Charter Declares that the Respondent bas not violated the Applicant’s right to privacy, as guaranteed by Article 17 of the ICCPR and Articles 5 and 12 of the UDHR.
ix. Pay compensation to the Applicant in the amount of 10 million Naira.