The ECOWAS Court of Justice on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, which sought N50 million in compensation from the Federal Government for each victim of the Abuja-Kaduna train attack.
In March 2022, terrorists bombed an Abuja-Kaduna railway near Rigasa, Kaduna, attacking over 970 passengers onboard. The incident led to fatalities, injuries, and abductions.
However, SERAP approached the court to hold the FG accountable for the incident, alleging human rights violations.
In an email to our correspondent on Thursday, the court stated that SERAP’s claims were inadmissible, as they did not satisfy the “victim status” requirement necessary for litigation under Article 10(d) of the Protocol.
The email read, “The ECOWAS Court of Justice has, on 13 November 2024, ruled on the case brought by the SERAP against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The case, which sought to hold Nigeria accountable for alleged human rights violations related to a terrorist attack on the Abuja-Kaduna train route in March 2022, was declared inadmissible due to the lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.
“SERAP filed the case following the terrorist attack on March 28, 2022, where armed assailants bombed a train carrying over 970 passengers along the Abuja-Kaduna rail line near Rigasa, Kaduna.
“The attack led to numerous fatalities, injuries, and abductions, with more than 150 individuals still unaccounted for. SERAP argued that Nigeria’s alleged lack of adequate preventive measures violated the rights of passengers to life, security, and dignity, and requested compensation of 50 million Naira for each passenger and victim’s family.
“In the judgment delivered by Justice Dupe Atoki, the Judge Rapporteur, the Court recognized its jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved potential human rights violations within a member state, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol. However, the Court found the claim inadmissible on grounds that it failed to meet the victim status requirement essential for litigation under Article 10(d) of the same Protocol.
“In its findings, the Court said that SERAP claimed to be acting in the public interest, citing previous incidents of terrorism in the region, including attacks on educational institutions and transportation services. However, the Court determined that the case did not meet the criteria for a public interest action, or actio popularis, which requires that the alleged violations affect a large, indeterminate segment of the public or the general public itself.
“The victims of the March 28 attack were identifiable individuals rather than an indeterminate public group, making the claim unsuitable as a public interest litigation.
“The reliefs sought, including specific monetary compensation, were directed at the identifiable victims of the attack rather than the public at large.”