ECOWAS Court Orders FG to Probe 1978 Seizure of Business Shares: Justice for Kolawole Koiki


​Justice Delayed: The ECOWAS Court Intervention


​In a landmark ruling that traverses decades of Nigerian history, the ECOWAS Court of Justice sitting in Abuja has ordered the Federal Government (FG) to probe the 1978 seizure of business shares belonging to a 94-year-old Nigerian businessman, Mr. Kolawole Koiki. This judgment marks a significant moment in the intersection of military-era decrees and modern human rights protections.


​The case centers on the New Nigeria Salt Company Limited, a firm where Mr. Koiki held a substantial 46% stake—amounting to 216,000 out of 480,000 shares—before they were forcibly taken by the military administration led by General Olusegun Obasanjo. For nearly 50 years, the applicant sought redress for what he described as an “unjustified seizure without compensation.”


​The Details of the Judgment: ECW/CCJ/APP/46/21


​Delivering the judgment in late 2025, the regional court found the Nigerian government liable, not necessarily for the original seizure (which occurred before the court’s protocol was established), but for the violation of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.


​The court directed the Federal Government to:


​Probe the Seizure: Conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 1978 takeover of the shares to determine the circumstances and the lack of compensation.


​Expedite NHRC Action: Ensure that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), where Mr. Koiki’s complaint had been languishing without determination, concludes its hearing and issues a final decision without further delay.


​Compensatory Damages: Pay Mr. Kolawole Koiki the sum of N5 million as compensation for the prolonged breach of his fundamental rights.


​The Historical Context: Ouster Clauses and Military Decrees


​The 1978 seizure was carried out under a military law that expressly ousted the jurisdiction of domestic courts. This meant that at the time of the incident, Mr. Koiki and other shareholders were legally barred from challenging the government’s action in any Nigerian court.


​The Federal Government’s defense argued that the matter was a “commercial dispute” and was “statute-barred” (too old to be heard). However, human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, argued that the failure of the NHRC to act on a human rights complaint filed in the modern era constituted a fresh and ongoing violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.


​Why This Ruling is a Win for Property Rights


​The ECOWAS Court’s decision sends a powerful message to member states about the sanctity of property rights and the necessity of administrative efficiency.


​Right to Fair Hearing: The court emphasized that when a citizen files a complaint with a statutory body like the NHRC, the state has a binding obligation to ensure that the body performs its duties within a “reasonable timeframe.”


​Accountability for Past Wrongs: By ordering a probe into a 1978 event, the court suggests that while the original act may be old, the failure to provide a forum for redress is a contemporary human rights issue.


​Property as a Human Right: The ruling reinforces that the arbitrary seizure of equity interests is not just a business loss but a violation of the right to own and enjoy property.


​The Role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)


​A major takeaway from this case is the critique of the NHRC’s delay. The court noted that the commission’s failure to conclude its process for years left the 94-year-old applicant in a state of legal limbo. This judgment effectively acts as a Mandamus, compelling the NHRC and the Federal Ministry of Justice to act decisively on long-standing petitions of this nature.

​Conclusion: A 47-Year Quest for Justice


​Mr. Kolawole Koiki’s victory at the ECOWAS Court is a testament to resilience. At 94, his battle highlights the long memory of justice. As the Federal Government moves to comply with the probe and pay the awarded damages, this case will likely serve as a precedent for other Nigerians whose assets were seized under military ouster clauses and have yet to receive a fair hearing.


Read Similar Articles Here

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.