By Taiwo Olamide Oluboyo
Introduction
Human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and interdependent. They are universal because all individuals are bestowed with same rights, irrespective of their geographical location, gender, race, religious, cultural affiliations. Human rights are inalienable, as individuals’ rights cannot be revoked; They are interdependent, as all rights – political, civil, social, cultural, and economic- hold equal significance, and none can be completely realized in the absence of the others. Importantly, human rights are applicable to all uniformly, and everyone has the right to engage in decisions that influence their lives.
This case reinforces the principles of international human rights law. International human rights legislation establishes duties that States must adhere to. By ratifying international treaties, States incur obligations and responsibilities under international law to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. The duty to respect mandates that States must abstain from interfering with or limiting the enjoyment of human rights – Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, 227/99, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Afr. Comm’n H.P.R., 1 68, May 29, 2003)
It is significant that for particular international human rights instruments to be implemented inside the domestic legal framework, they must overcome specific legal obstacles. Otherwise, they can at best be described as persuasive instruments. States typically establish procedures for the municipal application of treaties. Such is provided for in Section 12 (1) of the Nigeria 1999 Constitution. (See Fawehinmi v. Abacha (1996) 9 N.W.L.R (part 475) 710; Chima Ubani v. Director of State Security Service (1999) 1 NWLR (pt 625) 129). This does not, however, absolve the State of its international obligation under such an instrument. This rule of customary international law is codified in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.
The case of Abdourahamane Sanoh and 7 Others v. The State of Guinea, consolidated with Badara Aliou Cheikna Kone v. The State of Guinea. Both cases present a significant legal battle before the Community Court of Justice of ECOWAS, focusing on essential issues of civil liberties, human rights, and governmental accountability in a politically unstable environment. This case ruling, issued on 17th March 2025, highlights significant infractions purportedly committed by the Guinean State government over the arrests and detentions of political activists. The individuals, all affiliated with the Front National pour la Défense de la Constitution (FNDC), actively opposed planned constitutional modifications intended to permit President Alpha Condé to pursue a contentious third term in office.
The suit encompasses several internationally recognized human rights, including the right to liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, the right to privacy, and the right to a fair trial. The applicants asserted that their arrest and detention contravened multiple international legal instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Guinea is a signatory. The case highlighted the issue of the extent to which state (actors) might stifle dissent and whether international legal institutions can successfully uphold rights when domestic remedies are undermined by political considerations.
Facts of the Case
Nine Guinean nationals – Abdourahamane Sanoh, Sekou Koundouno, Ibrahim Diallo, Abdoulaye Oumou Sow, Mamadou Bailo Barry, Mamadou Sanoh, Alpha Soumah (also known as “Bil de Sam”), Mamadou Bobo Bah, and Badara Aliou Cheikna Kone – made up the applicants in this case. Each one of them belonged to either the FNDC, a civil alliance created to legally oppose the constitutional revision allowing President Condé to run for a third term.
The applicants claimed that their activity concentrated on planning authorized and non-violent demonstrations. Eight of them were arrested at the private residence of Abdourahamane Sanoh on October 12, 2019, where they had assembled to get ready for a news conference on the intended demonstrations. Armed, hooded guys without any arrest warrant or past notice executed the arrest. Badara Aliou Cheikna Kone, the ninth applicant, was likewise arrested at his family house on October 13, 2019, under a similarly forceful and warrantless operation.
The applicants were detained incommunicado, without legal counsel, and subsequently moved to the Direction des Investigations after their arrests. They then came before local tribunals accused under Guinean criminal law. Among other things, the allegations covered public disturbance, incitement to unarmed gathering, disrespect of the head of state, and impersonation. Particularly in the instance of Kone, who claimed he was denied his access to legal representation during the preliminary inquiry, the processes were quick and purportedly procedurally flawed.
These arrests occurred amidst a larger framework of political turmoil in Guinea, where opposition parties and civil society organizations had grown more outspoken in their critique of the President’s desire to change constitutional term restrictions. The applicants argued that under the pretense of preserving public order, their treatment was part of a calculated plan by the Guinean government to quell dissent and muzzle opposing voices.
Decision of the Court
The applicants’ claims as well as the State of Guinea’s defences were closely examined by the ECOWAS Court. The Court considered the case admissible under Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05, it noted that the applicants were identifiable victims, their claim was not anonymous, and it had not been concurrently filed with any other international court. After jurisdiction was established, the Court looked at every claimed infringement of a right one in turn.
First, concerning the right to respect for the home, the Court noted that armed police who entered forcefully and without court authorization arrested the applicants at their homes. The Court underlined that the house is a private and protected area and that such illegal, forceful access violated Articles 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR. The State had justifiable reasons to arrest the applicants, but the lack of warrants and the use of too strong force made the actions illegal.
Regarding the right to personal liberty, the Court decided the applicants were unlawfully imprisoned without any legal justification or procedural protection. Under Guinean criminal process, the arrests (which took place without warrants) lacked legality. The court held that the applicants were only using their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly, hence their arrest breached Articles 6 of the ACHPR, Article 9 of the ICCPR, and Articles 3 and 9 of the UDHR.
Another key issue was the freedom of assembly. The Court, having noted that the applicants had convened amicably to organize a legal protest, decided that their arrest for attending this preparatory meeting amounted to an unwarranted restriction of their right to assemble. The defendant violated Article 11 of the ACHPR and associated international instruments by failing to prove that this limitation was required or reasonable.
The Court also declared a breach of freedom of opinion and expression. It decided that the applicants’ arrest essentially muffled their political speech and stopped them from telling the public about their opinions. The Court noted its earlier rulings stressing the right to question government policy without regard to possible detention (Deyda Hydara Jr. & 2 Ors v. Republic of the Gambia (/2014) CCJELR)
Another violated freedom was the right to demonstrate. The Court observed that although Guinea’s Constitution provides this right, the government has methodically suppressed public demonstrations under the cover of maintaining order. The Court decided that this suppression was arbitrary and illegal since the arrests in this case was clearly connected to the intentions of the applicants to plan peaceful marches.
Regarding his right to a fair trial, the Court concentrated on Badara Kone’s allegation that he was deprived of legal help under interrogation. The Court underlined the need of an accused knowing from the moment of arrest the right to counsel. The State had to prove that Kone was advised of his rights, and it fell short. The Court thus decided that Kone’s rights to a fair trial under Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 7 of the ACHPR had been infringed.
Regarding remedies, noting that the applicants had already been released, the Court denied the claim for 10,000,000 CFA for each day of delayed release. For psychological damage, it paid a lump sum of five million CFA francs to every applicant, although the claimed sums were exorbitant and unsupported by data, there was no question that the arrests were stressful and unfair.
Conclusion
This case’s judgment is a historic decision which supports the important part regional courts play in safeguarding West African human rights. It shows how well international legal institutions could be used as tools for citizens seeking compensation when national legal systems either collapse or get corrupted because of political interference.
Examining not only the legality of the arrests but also the larger background of political repression shows the Court’s profound knowledge of how rights may be infringed by state-approved intimidation and procedural short cuts. For other nations in the ECOWAS area, its insistence on due process, proportionality, and the State bearing the weight of proof offers a great model.
This decision reminds States, especially, that liberties like expression, assembly, and protest are inalienable rights enshrined in both domestic and international law, not privileges to be granted at convenience. The ruling not only gave the applicants symbolic justice but also sent a strong statement opposing the use of court and security institutions to stifle political opposition.
Taiwo Olamide Oluboyo is a graduate of law from the University of Benin.
