Judgment has been reserved after hearing on the case between Reverend (Dr) John Joseph Hayab and the Federal Government of Nigeria at the Court of Economic Community of West Africa States, ECOWAS, which occurred on the weekend precisely 28 February 2025.
Reverend Hayab, who was the Kaduna State Chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), dragged the Federal Government of Nigeria to the ECOWAS court in October 2023 following the Kaduna state Governor Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai-led government’s order to demolish the only church where Christian students worship at the main campus of Kaduna State University (KASU).
The Kaduna state government also sought to forcefully confiscate the Chapel of Goodnews, another Church that shares a fence with the University and has its separate ownership.
In the suit, Counsel to the Applicant, Barrister Gloria Mabeiam Ballason, argued that the right to freedom of religion and equal treatment before the Law is enshrined in the African Charter and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
She further argued that the decision by the Nigerian Court to not so much as arraign Ismail Umaru Dikko, the agent of state who personally led joint armed security agents to demolish the chapel and harassed and manhandled the leaders of the church and workers at the site meant that the Court shut its door against the litigant, put the state government above the Law and swept her client beneath the law.
She stressed that Kaduna State University is a separate and distinct entity from the Chapel of Goodnews and is owned by two separate, unrelated entities.
Barrister Ballason stated that Kaduna State is under the governing powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is the Defendant. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is supreme with a binding force on the authorities and persons in the country as stipulated in Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, adding that the proper party to sue in the case is the Defendant as provided by the Rules of the ECOWAS Court.
In the suit, the Applicant mentioned that the Respondent had violated the rights, and effective remedies, including exemplary damages, are needed to forestall the rights to freedom of religion contained in Nigeria’s municipal laws, regional laws, and international law. The subject matter is the fundamental Rights to religious freedom, which come from the dignity of the human being as God’s creation.
The Counsel, therefore, urged the Court to dismiss the Defendants’ statement and prayed the Court to protect and enforce the Applicant’s rights in the interest of justice.
Defence counsel Barrister Ibrahim Hassan urged the ECOWAS Court to dismiss the case because of abuse of court processes and lack of merit, stating that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies. As such, the application amounted to forum shopping.
However, Counsel to the Applicant, Barrister Ballason, asserted that the universal principle of law is that where there is injury, there must be a remedy. Since the Nigerian Court shut its doors, the regional court was available for remedies, as exhaustion of local remedies was no longer a condition precedent for an application at the regional court.
The panel of three Justices heard the application and reserved the matter for judgment on a date to be communicated to the parties.
