Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja — In a landmark ruling with significant implications for human rights and state accountability in West Africa, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice has directed the Federal Government of Nigeria to investigate the 1978 seizure of equity shares belonging to a Nigerian businessman, underscoring prolonged legal neglect and compelling action nearly five decades after the event. This development also comes with a compensation award to the aggrieved party and fresh pressure on domestic institutions to expedite stalled justice processes.
The ruling, delivered on 17 November 2025, arose from a petition filed by Mr. Kolawole Koiki, now 94 years old, through his legal representatives, including prominent human rights lawyer Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Koiki’s case centres on the forceful takeover of his 46 per cent stake in the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd under a controversial decree enacted by the then Nigerian military government in 1978—a period marked by widespread nationalisation and regulatory interventions that often barred courts from reviewing such actions.
Koiki had lodged a formal complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in 2010, arguing that the state’s seizure of his shares—executed through a law that expressly excluded judicial challenge—was unlawful and deprived him of fair compensation and due process. However, the complaint languished for years amid administrative inertia, largely because the NHRC’s Governing Council was dissolved in 2015 and not reconstituted until 2021, leaving the Commission unable to conclude its investigation or issue a determination.
The ECOWAS Court’s judgment did not focus on the legality of the original 1978 takeover itself—a matter considered outside its immediate mandate—but rather on the failure of Nigerian institutions to afford Koiki a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a party. The court found that the prolonged delay and administrative lapses constituted a violation of Koiki’s fundamental rights, holding that the Nigerian state bore responsibility for ensuring the effective operation of its judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms.
In addition to ordering a compensation award of ₦5 million to Koiki for the breach of his rights, the regional tribunal directed the Federal Government to take all necessary measures to ensure the prompt hearing and determination of his complaint before the NHRC without further delay. This includes ensuring that the NHRC’s Governing Council and related bodies function effectively to deliver on their mandates, closing a decades-long impasse that left Koiki seeking redress.
The case highlights broader issues within Nigeria’s human rights and administrative justice systems, where delays and governance gaps have often frustrated citizens’ attempts to seek remedies, particularly in matters involving historical state actions such as nationalisation, asset seizures or other rights abuses. Observers note that the ECOWAS ruling reinforces the principle that member states of the regional bloc must uphold international human rights obligations and ensure that domestic institutions are structured and resourced to fulfil these duties without undue delay.
For decades, the New Nigeria Salt Company Ltd has remained a defining example of state-led corporate takeovers during the era of military rule, when decrees often immune from judicial review were used to restructure key sectors of the economy. Koiki’s lawsuit has drawn attention to the long-running legal and administrative struggles that can follow such actions, particularly for private investors and minority shareholders who found themselves disenfranchised by the seizure and subsequent legal constraints.
The court’s direction to the Nigerian government also places renewed emphasis on the NHRC’s role as a cornerstone institution for the protection of human rights, highlighting the importance of maintaining robust governance structures capable of handling complex, high-profile cases. Experts say the judgment may prompt legislative and administrative reforms aimed at strengthening the NHRC and other quasi-judicial bodies to prevent future bottlenecks and to ensure that rights complaints are addressed efficiently and fairly.
Legal analysts suggest that the ruling could set a significant precedent for other citizens whose rights were affected by historical government actions now ripe for review under international human rights frameworks. It could also encourage a broader reckoning with state accountability mechanisms in Nigeria, where delayed justice has often been criticised as tantamount to denial of justice.
In political and legal circles, reactions to the judgment have been mixed. Some officials argue that revisiting events from nearly half a century ago could open the floodgates for numerous claims, potentially exposing the state to compensation liabilities and administrative burdens. Advocates for human rights, however, contend that the decision embodies a long-overdue affirmation of individual rights and the rule of law, emphasising that justice delayed is justice denied—particularly where elderly claimants like Koiki have waited years for resolution.
As Nigeria prepares to respond to the ECOWAS Court’s order, stakeholders are watching closely to see whether the Federal Government will act swiftly to fulfil its obligations under the judgment. Implementation of the court’s directives, including the prompt conclusion of the NHRC complaint, may serve as a litmus test for the state’s commitment to international human rights norms and the strengthening of domestic redress systems.
The judgment also reinforces the binding nature of ECOWAS Court decisions on member states, underlining the regional body’s role in ensuring compliance with human rights standards across West Africa. With the spotlight on both the Nigerian government and the NHRC, the coming weeks are expected to be pivotal in determining how the country navigates historical grievances within the framework of contemporary legal and human rights obligations.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments