The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has ordered the Federal Government of Nigeria to pay N10 million in damages to journalist Jide Oyekunle over his physical assault, unlawful arrest, detention, and seizure of personal property while covering the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests in Abuja.
The judgment, delivered in Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/29/25 on June 22, 2026, found Nigeria liable for violating Oyekunle’s fundamental rights, including his rights to freedom of expression, personal liberty, human dignity, and property as guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Oyekunle, a reporter with Independent Newspaper and Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), FCT Council, was assaulted, detained, and had his camera damaged and mobile phone confiscated by armed police officers on August 1, 2024, while reporting live from the Eagle Square protest ground in Abuja.
The suit was filed by Avocats Sans Frontières France (ASF France), also known as Lawyers Without Borders France, under its European Union-supported eRIGHTS project, which promotes the protection of digital rights and freedom of expression.
Representing the applicant, Collins I. Maidoh-Anene argued that the actions of the Nigerian Police Force were excessive, unjustified, and contrary to international human rights standards. The ECOWAS Court agreed, ruling that the detention of the journalist and seizure of his phone amounted to unlawful interference with his constitutional and international rights.
According to the court, the confiscation of Oyekunle’s phone disrupted his live coverage of the protest, thereby violating his right to freedom of expression under Article 9 of the African Charter. The court further held that the assault and detention breached Articles 5 and 6, which protect the rights to dignity, personal liberty, and freedom from degrading treatment.
The regional court also found that the temporary seizure of his mobile device violated his right to property under Article 14 of the Charter.
In its ruling, the court rejected the Nigerian government’s justification for the actions of the security personnel, holding that the measures failed the international law test of necessity and were therefore excessive and unlawful.
Reacting to the judgment, Country Director of ASF France, Angela Uwandu Uzoma-Iwuchukwu, described the decision as a major victory for press freedom and digital rights.
She said the ruling reinforces the principle that journalists’ digital devices are essential tools of modern journalism and that arbitrary seizure of such equipment constitutes an attack on media freedom and the public’s right to information.
“The court’s pronouncement adds to the growing body of regional jurisprudence protecting journalists and human rights defenders who document protests and matters of public interest,” she stated.
Uzoma-Iwuchukwu added that ASF France would continue to monitor compliance with the judgment and provide legal support to journalists facing similar violations.
For his part, Oyekunle welcomed the judgment, describing it as a significant affirmation of the rights of journalists to carry out their duties without fear, intimidation, harassment, or violence.
“This judgment is not only about me; it is about every journalist, media worker, and Nigerian citizen who believes in freedom of expression, access to information, and peaceful civic participation,” he said.
He stressed that democracy cannot flourish where journalists are attacked for documenting events or citizens are punished for exercising their lawful rights.
According to him, the ruling sends a strong message that security agencies and public institutions must be held accountable whenever they violate fundamental human rights.
Oyekunle also expressed gratitude to the NUJ FCT Council, ASF France, colleagues, rights advocates, and Nigerians who continue to champion press freedom and democratic values.
The judgment is expected to further strengthen legal protections for journalists and media practitioners across West Africa, particularly in cases involving censorship, intimidation, and interference with digital reporting tools.
Comments