MONROVIA – The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has ruled in the case of Ganta Support Group and Another versus the Republic of Liberia, ordering the respondent (The Republic of Liberia) to take all necessary steps to restore the applicants’ rights to their ancestral land and ensure that a similar occurrence is avoided in the future.
By Henry Karmo [email protected]
The court has also ordered the Republic of Liberia to immediately implement measures in compliance with Article 1 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).
Furthermore, the Respondent state has been directed to submit a report on the measures taken to implement the court’s orders within six months from the date of notification of the judgment. As part of the reparation, the court has ordered the respondent to pay compensation of US$25,000 to the second applicant and US$5,000 for the violation of their right to property pursuant to Article 14 of the ACHPR.
The court’s ruling established a violation of the right to property under Article 14 of the ACHPR. It also highlighted that the Republic of Liberia violated Article 1 of the ACHPR by failing to take remedial actions to prevent the breach of rights guaranteed in the ACHPR.
The second applicant, Sanoe, and the first applicant, the Ganta Support Group, a non-governmental organization, filed a joint suit against the Respondent, accusing it of violating the human rights of the Mandingo people of the county, breaching several fundamental human rights treaties.
The court also mandated Liberia to take all necessary steps to restore the applicants’ rights to their ancestral home and ensure that such occurrences are avoided in the future, in compliance with Article 1 of the ACHPR, which guarantees the rights of its citizens.
In the judgment, a three-panel judge of the court led by Justice Gberi-Be Ouattara directed the government to submit a report on the measures taken to implement the orders within six months from the date of the notification of the judgment.
Addressing the contention of the first applicant, the court stated, “It finds that the first applicant, representing the Mandingo people, failed to provide a detailed list of names of persons whose properties were alleged to have been occupied by agents of the respondent, including addresses of the properties so far occupied, but referred to them as a tribal unit. This will make an itemized form of compensation difficult if not impossible.”
However, this does not imply that the right to property was not violated. Instead, the court cannot award individual monetary compensation in such circumstances.
“In cases like these, the court will order the respondent to take all necessary steps to restore the applicants to their ancestral home, especially when there is evidence that the respondent has identified and listed most of the illegal occupants and has paid compensation to them.”
According to the court, the wrongful act is attributed to the respondent, who is obligated to promote and safeguard the rights of its citizens, including the right to property.
“The court consequently finds that the respondent failed in its obligation to promote and protect the applicants’ right to property,” the ECOWAS Court judgment said.