(Priestess Adonor v. FRN (ECW/CCJ/JUD /02/2025)
By President Aigbokhan
The plaintiff, Priestess Lovina Amina Adonor, a Nigerian citizen and a priestess of Iseh Ground, brought claims against the Nigerian government alleging violations of her fundamental human rights.
Specifically, she contended that her shrine was attacked and vandalized by identified private individuals for turning down a marriage offer. This forced her to flee the community.
She argued that the Nigerian authorities failed to provide adequate protection, investigate her complaints, or address the destruction of her religious materials and property.
These allegations were framed as violations of her rights to propagate her religion, to security, to own property, to a fair hearing and access to justice.
The plaintiff alleged that the State failed to protect her and her shrine. Further, they failed to prosecute or take meaningful legal steps towards redressing her complaints and regrettably mischaracterized her fundamental rights case as a civil matter.
The exhibits relied on by the plaintiff include petitions to the commissioner of police and ministry of tourism, photos of her coronation and community events, photos of her dead animals and damaged property, receipts for spiritual items and her trade-medical license.
The reliefs sought by the Applicant include a declaration that the illegal takeover and destruction of the Applicant’s workshop, office equipment, building, and livestock constituted an infringement of her property rights as guaranteed under Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution.
She also sought a declaration that the Respondent’s failure to investigate the destruction of her property amounted to a violation of her right to security, contrary to relevant laws and treaties.
The key legal issue before the ECOWAS Court was whether the Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of religion, personal security, and property were violated as a result of the Defendant’s failure to prevent, protect against, and prosecute the alleged acts of violence and dispossession.
Specifically, the Court was invited to determine whether the Nigerian government’s inaction—despite being presented with formal complaints and prima facie evidence of wrongdoing—amounted to a breach of its obligations under both domestic and international human rights frameworks.
Closely tied to this was the broader question of whether the state’s failure to pursue effective investigation and prosecution, thereby creating an environment of impunity, could be construed as constructive complicity or toleration of human rights abuses by non-state actors.
It is not about the plaintiff -Adonor but the impulse of religious intolerance and Gender Abuses in Nigeria. The case raised critical questions about the scope of state responsibility, the accountability threshold required under regional human rights law, and the ECOWAS Court’s interpretive mandate in holding states to account for both action and inaction in the protection of fundamental rights.
Upon a comprehensive review of the parties’ submissions, the ECOWAS Court of Justice, in a judgment delivered on 13 February 2025, dismissed the Applicant’s claims for lack of direct attribution of the alleged human rights violations to the Federal Republic of Nigeria or its agents.
The three-member panel—comprising Honourable Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge), Honourable Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Judge Rapporteur), and Honourable Justice Edward Amoako Asante—found that the acts complained of were committed by private individuals and that the Respondent had taken reasonable steps to investigate the allegations, thereby absolving the state of liability. The Court accordingly declined to award reparations or issue a perpetual injunction, holding that each party should bear its costs.
The Court earlier noted discrepancies in the Applicant’s pleadings, particularly her misidentification of relevant legal provisions. It observed: “In paragraph 1.11 of the Application, the Applicant erroneously cites Article 5 of the African Charter but reproduces the content of Article 6. While the Court may, in appropriate circumstances, invoke the correct legal provision suo motu where the facts and evidence are consistent and non-prejudicial, the present Application is marred by inconsistencies in legal citation and arguments that are grossly at variance with the provisions relied upon. This prevents the Court from exercising its inherent corrective powers”.
The case of the applicant is strictly against the Nigerian Police for failure to prosecute the culprits eight months after an investigation report that shows that two persons are guilty of the allegations of the plaintiff. It is a case against the Police and not the culprits who are private citizens.
The ECOWAS Court of Justice was also wrong to have held that it cannot rely on non-cited international treaties to support the grant of the applicant’s reliefs. The court can rely on treaties ratified by member states, even if they are not explicitly cited in a complaint. This is based on the Court’s broad mandate to apply international human rights instruments, regardless of whether a complainant references them. See Article 10 of the ECOWAS Court Protocol (1991, amended in 2005).
This is because the Court has a broad mandate to interpret and apply international human rights instruments, ensuring that justice is served based on substantive human rights principles rather than technical legal arguments. The Court has, in several cases, relied on treaties and international human rights laws that were not explicitly cited in complaints.
In Opuz v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02) where Nahide Opuz and her mother were repeatedly assaulted and threatened by Opuz’s husband. Despite numerous complaints to the authorities, the state failed to adequately investigate or intervene. Opuz’s mother was eventually killed.
The European Court found that Turkey had violated provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held further that Turkey had an obligation to investigate and prevent gender-based violence and ensure adequate legal remedies for victims.
In González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico where the victims’ families alleged that the Mexican authorities failed to investigate the disappearances and deaths adequately, which was part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence and systemic failure to protect women from violence in the region.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that Mexico had violated the women’s right to life, right to personal integrity, and personal liberty, among others.
The court emphasized that states must conduct thorough and effective investigations into gender-based violence and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. The state was ordered to compensate the families and take measures to prevent further violence against women.
In this instance, the ECOWAS Court effectively abdicated its fundamental responsibility to determine whether interference with religious practice by non-state actors—when met with the state’s conspicuous inaction or dereliction of duty—amounts to a breach of human rights under regional and international legal standards.
By refraining from thoroughly adjudicating on the state’s obligation to protect individuals from violations perpetrated by private entities, particularly in matters implicating freedom of religion and belief, the Court missed a pivotal opportunity to affirm the positive duties incumbent upon member states to prevent, investigate, and redress such infringements.
This judicial omission not only weakens the normative framework for the protection of religious liberty but also risks entrenching impunity, especially where vulnerable groups—such as religious minorities or female spiritual leaders—are systematically subjected to discrimination, violence, or exclusion.
The Court’s reluctance to assert jurisdiction over this dimension of the case signals a troubling retreat from its mandate as a regional guardian of human rights and a beacon of justice for those marginalized by both state and societal structures.
The impact of this case lies in its potential to test the extent to which the ECOWAS Court of Justice can utilize existing legal frameworks to hold Nigerian authorities accountable for their failure to prosecute cases after a citizen has complained, especially in contexts where gender and religion play a significant role.
It challenges the culture of impunity that often surrounds such complaints in Nigeria, where victims—particularly women and religious minorities—are frequently denied justice due to systemic bias, inaction, or selective enforcement.
By examining whether the regional court can compel state actors to fulfil their prosecutorial obligations, the case could set a precedent for regional oversight in ensuring that national governments do not neglect their duty to protect and enforce the rights of vulnerable populations.
A critical concern emerging from this case is the pervasive institutional bias against women religious leaders, which underscores the broader systemic protection gaps that persist in cases involving female complainants.
The entire investigative and prosecutorial chain—from the initial officers assigned to the case through to the senior management team overseeing its trajectory—was composed exclusively of male personnel, thereby raising legitimate questions about the presence of unconscious gender bias and the likelihood of empathetic, nuanced handling of such matters.
This gender imbalance not only diminishes the confidence of female victims in the justice system but also risks distorting the course of justice itself.
To remedy this, it is imperative to incorporate comprehensive gender studies into the curriculum of the police academies and to foster an adoption of gender policy for justice stakeholders to enhance a deeper understanding of gender dynamics.
This would empower them to recognize and confront gender-based prejudice, and ultimately enhance institutional capacity to adjudicate gender-sensitive cases with fairness, cultural competence, and respect for human dignity.
President Aigbokhan works with FOI Counsel. He can be contacted via president@foicounsel.com @foicounselng. President Aigbokhan, LLB, LLM (AAU), PhD Student (Igbinedion University, Okada)
