The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has dismissed a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), challenging Nigeria’s public borrowing.
SERAP sued the Federal Government, alleging that its persistent and unsustainable borrowing had created a substantial public debt burden that undermined the government’s ability to provide essential public services, including healthcare, education, and access to clean water.
The organisation argued that the borrowing practices adversely affected the socio-economic rights of vulnerable and marginalised Nigerians and violated rights guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments.
SERAP asked the court to declare that Nigeria’s borrowing practices and their economic consequences violated Nigerians’ rights to health, education, and economic and social development.
The Federal Government denied the allegations and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The ECOWAS Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter because it involved alleged human rights violations. It also ruled that the application was admissible and recognised SERAP’s standing to bring the case as a public interest litigant.
However, on the merits of the case, the court found that SERAP failed to provide sufficient legal and factual evidence to prove that Nigeria’s borrowing policy directly caused violations of citizens’ human rights.
According to the court, although SERAP presented statistics on Nigeria’s domestic and external debt and highlighted the country’s economic challenges, it failed to identify the specific rights allegedly violated, define the government’s legal obligations, or demonstrate a direct link between the borrowing policy and the alleged violations.
The court also noted that SERAP did not provide concrete evidence showing that any identifiable individuals or communities had suffered the alleged human rights violations because of the government’s borrowing practices.
It concluded that the application largely consisted of general economic and political grievances that did not meet the evidentiary threshold required in human rights litigation.
The court therefore dismissed the suit in its entirety.
