The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has rejected a lawsuit brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), which sought to secure N50 million in compensation from the Nigerian Government for every individual affected by the Abuja-Kaduna train attack.

This decision was delivered to SERAP on Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at the ECOWAS Court headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.

Recall that in March 2022, terrorists targeted an Abuja-Kaduna railway near Rigasa, Kaduna, bombing the train and attacking over 970 passengers on board.

The assault resulted in deaths, injuries, and kidnappings.

SERAP took the matter to court, seeking to hold the Nigerian Government accountable for the incident, accusing it of human rights violations.

The court ruled that SERAP’s claims were inadmissible, stating that they failed to meet the “victim status” requirement outlined in Article 10(d) of the Protocol, which is necessary for initiating litigation.

“The ECOWAS Court of Justice has, on 13 November 2024, ruled on the case brought by the SERAP against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

“The case, which sought to hold Nigeria accountable for alleged human rights violations related to a terrorist attack on the Abuja-Kaduna train route in March 2022, was declared inadmissible due to the lack of victim status required for public interest litigation.”

Justice Dupe Atoki, delivering the judgment, confirmed the court’s jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol to hear cases on potential human rights violations.

However, the claim was deemed inadmissible for failing to meet the victim status requirement under Article 10(d).

“SERAP claimed to be acting in the public interest, citing previous incidents of terrorism in the region, including attacks on educational institutions and transportation services.”

“However, the Court determined that the case did not meet the criteria for a public interest action, or actio popularis, which requires that the alleged violations affect a large, indeterminate segment of the public or the general public itself.”

 “The victims of the March 28 attack were identifiable individuals rather than an indeterminate public group, making the claim unsuitable as a public interest litigation.”

 “The reliefs sought, including specific monetary compensation, were directed at the identifiable victims of the attack rather than the public at large.”