ECOWAS court rejects bid seeking creation of sixth South-East state

The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States has dismissed a case challenging Nigeria’s geopolitical structure, ruling that the country did not violate regional or international human rights laws.

In Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/32/23, a Nigerian non-governmental organisation based in Switzerland alleged that the federal government’s failure to create a sixth state in the Southeast geopolitical zone amounted to discrimination.

The organisation argued that this imbalance deprived the region of crucial developmental benefits, such as infrastructure, revenue allocations, and employment opportunities, in violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A statement sent to our correspondent’s email on Tuesday said the court in its unanimous decision found no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.

It ruled that the creation of states within Nigeria is a constitutional matter under the authority of the government and that the Southeast already has adequate representation in the country’s governance structure.

Furthermore, the court held that the NGO failed to prove that the absence of a sixth state directly caused developmental setbacks in the region.

Additionally, a second applicant, a Switzerland-based NGO, was struck from the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdictional standing.

It stated, “In its reasoned judgment, the Court held that the creation of states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria falls within the constitutional prerogative of the Respondent State.

”The Southeast zone maintains sufficient representation within Nigeria’s governance structure, and the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect in the current geopolitical arrangement.

“The mere creation of an additional state does not necessarily guarantee development outcomes, and the Applicant failed to establish a causal link between the absence of a sixth state and alleged violations of the right to development.

“The Court therefore concluded that the Respondent State had not violated its obligations under Article 19 or Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, nor under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”