Chief Essien Akpabio and Lady Apostle Helen Akpabio v Republic of Nigeria (Communication 418/12) [2022] ACHPR 22 (9 November 2022)

UU\.;U~lyll CIIV~IUjJ~ IU. 1v::1.)DDO::1U-Iv' OD-&+I'-r ';)-MI U I -D';)&f'U~/"V"\UU::1D\'" (~ ~J ~~tt~,~ Human and Peoples' Aiqtlts , . HurT"d'l Rlqhl<, our I;A' Illy Collective Re~p() Communication 418/12 Chief Essien Akpabio & Lady Apostle Helen Ai,(pabio (represented by Mr. Victor Ukutt v Republic of Nigeria Africpn e ' ::~ Union ",,,;W ec/eva/AIO The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Phone: (220) 2304361 Fax: (220) 4410504 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au,intl ~ 0 III Communication 418/12: Chief Essien Akpabio & Lady Apostle Helen Akpabio (represented by Mr. Victor Ukutt v. Republic of Nigeria Summary of facts 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The complaint was submitted to the Secretariat'¢f the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) on 16 July 2012 by Victor Ukutt & Co Legal Practitioners on behalf of the complainants. 1,2, thre~:(~) whit~:r,~~inned gentlemen, The complainants allege that in Mar, compaRied 'l5y Mr. B~ei" invited brothers allegedly workers of a company X, Charles Akpabio (Charles), Emmanuel Akpabio (Emmanuel) and Joseph Akpabio (Joseph), from the village of Mente in Akwa lbom State to a meeting regarding the construction of a dam in the village. During this meeting, an armed individual, believed by the complainants to be a Nigerian security officer (security guard) and Mr. N. I., arrived at the meeting and handcuffed the three Akpabio brothers;' Meanwhile, the security guard, after a conversation vyi,ltj':,Mr. B. C., shot and seriously wounded the young leaders present at the meeting'Fj The complainants alleged that the security guard, accompanied by Mr. B. C., this time wearing a hood, took the three Akpabio brothers to their parents' house. Once there)Jhey took the'brot~ers, Charl~§'"randJoseph, to the banana plantation behind the house and shot them ln the pres'ence of their parents. Then four other boys and Charles and Joseph's brother Emmanuel were also executed and dumped on the the side of complainants allege that N. I. asked Mr. B. C. to inform Senators A. E., P.1.and Chief B. I. that the op~'~ationhad been carried out. the road in Obot Akari, Akwa Ibom State. After the execution, The complainants allege that the execution in question was due to the fact that the father of the three Akpabio brothers owned 80% of the cultivated area and land where the dam was to be built and that the federal government had already approved compensation offive hundred million naira (N500,OOO,000),or about three million U. S. dollars ($3,000,000). Alleged violations 7. The complainants allege violations of articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 19 and 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter). Prayers 8. The complainants request the Commission to: (a) conduct a thorough investigation in the Respondent State to establish first-hand the gravity of the violations committed against the Akpabio family; (b) order the Respondent State to pay adequate compensation to the victims or their relatives for the violations of their rights; 'i";'h,,~ ,;i (c) refer the matter to the African Court on Hum~o'~(ld Peoples' Rights under Rule 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (Rules of Procedure 2010); (d) declare that there has been a violation of Articles 1,2,3,4,5,6" 14, 19 and 21 of the African Charter Summary of Procedure i :;r~" ;rt 9. the complaint Was submitted to the Secretariat. At the 52nd On 16 July 2012, Ordinary Session held in Yarnoussoukro from 9 to 22 October 2012, the Commission accepted the complaint and, by letter dated 29 May 2013, requested their written observations on admissibility within the the complainants to submit stipulated timeframe. 10. On 29 January 2014, the Secretariat/by email, alerted the complainants that they had not yet submitted their observations and evidence on the admissibility of the communication. 11. By correspondence dated 1 April 2014, the Secretariat informed the parties that the the complainants to submit written observations and evidence on the communication would be scheduled for a deadline for admissibilitY!;l decision on its .x'pired and that lusion.' 12. By correspondence dated 18 August 2014, the Secretariat informed the Parties that at the 16th Ordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda, from 20 to 29 July 2014, the Commission deferred consideration of the communication on its exclusion. Analysis of the Commission 13. The Commission notes that, pursuant to Rules 141(1) and (2), 142, and 145 of the Commission's 2020 Rules of Procedure (2020 Rules), as interpreted by the Commission's Practical Guidelines in its Guideline I: Application of the 2020 R~!i==~ of Procedure, complaints or communications submitted prior to the entry in ~ of the 2020 Rules continue to fall under the Commission's 2010 Rules of A Bedtlt:e ~:~ 4,yD 4r (2010 Rules). Therefore, 2010 Rules of Procedure. this communication, submitted in 2012, falls under the 14. Further to the foregoing, the Commission notes that Rule 105( 1) of the 2010 Rules of Procedure provides that where the Commission declares a complaint admissible, to submit observations and evidence on the it shall admissibility of the communication within two (2) months. Pursuant to Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission may extend this period at the request of any of the parties involved in the communication. the complainant request 15. In the present communication, the complainants did not submit the observations and evidence on admissibility within the time limit, nor did they request an extension, although they were alerted to this effect by the Secretariat by email on 29 January 2014 (see paragraph 9 of the present decision). 16. The Commission notes, moreover, that the Complainants also had the opportunity informed them on two to request an extension of the deadline after the Secretariat occasions of a possible consideration 6(the co~uiunicatiOn with a view to its strike out for failure to submit observations and e;;.tide, ~'On admissibility (see paragraphs 11 and 12 of this Decision). '1;\;;[ 17. The Commission notes that, despite the prornptvaction of the Complainants h~ve never shown any inclination to cooperate in the conclusion of the procedure to· obtain a decision on admissibility arid to allow the procedure to proceed to the next stage. the Secretariat, ~.5:~t 18. The Commission recalls that in similar situation, it had already ruled to this effect in 594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. Arab Communication Republic of Egypt; 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. Arab Republic of Egypt; and du Nord 412/12: Communication Journal 387/10: Kafi Yamagnane v. Togo. v. Republic of Gabon; Echos 19. In view of the foregoing, the Commission rules that the complaint be strike out. Adopted Gambia, at from 21 October to 09 November 2022 the 73rd Ordinary Session of the Commission