The Community Court of Justice ECOWAS, on 8 July 2025, declared inadmissible an application filed by a Community citizen claiming human rights violations particularly, enforced disappearance and infringement on other fundamental freedoms by the Republics of Liberia and Guinea.

Case Background

The Applicant, Mr Abrahim Sheriff, a Community citizen who claimed to be of Liberian origin but raised in Guinea, alleged grave violations of his fundamental human rights. He submitted that the First and Second Respondents – Republic of Liberia and Republic of Guinea orchestrated his unlawful arrest and detention based on unfounded allegations of his involvement in armed insurrection, mercenary activities, and criminal conspiracy, among others.

He contended that he was a victim of arbitrary detention under inhuman and degrading conditions and subjected to various human rights violations including arbitrary restrictions on his freedom of movement, discriminatory treatment, forced imprisonment, and enforced disappearance.

Furthermore, he claimed that the Respondents subjected him to torture, imminent risk of death, false accusations of being a mercenary and confiscated an amount of 177,800 United States Dollars belonging to him. 

He averred that the actions of the Respondents amounted to violations of his rights to life, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and the right to work, as enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The First Respondent, Republic of Liberia, contended that the Applicant was lawfully transferred to the Republic of Guinea—his country of nationality, residence, and domicile—following his release, and that this transfer was publicly disclosed during ‘habeas corpus’ proceedings. As such, the key element of concealment required for a claim of enforced disappearance was missing. Additionally, it argued that the Applicant did not demonstrate any intent to conceal his fate or whereabouts since the Applicant personally initiated the case. According to the First Respondent, this act undermined the credibility of his claim of forced disappearance and rendered the application untenable.

The Second Respondent, Republic of Guinea denied all allegations, asserting that any alleged violations occurred solely in Liberia and not within its jurisdiction. It claimed there was no evidence that the Applicant was ever in Guinean custody or mistreated in Guinea. It further argued that the application was inadmissible, as it was filed in the name of someone allegedly deceased, without proper legal representation. It also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the matter.

Court Finding

On jurisdiction, the Court declared it has jurisdiction based on Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court, which provides that the Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of human rights violations that occur in any Member State. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Second Respondent, Republic of Guinea’s objection regarding lack of jurisdiction.

On admissibility, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s assertion of being a direct victim coupled with claims of forced disappearance rendered his legal capacity to initiate this action untenable. The Court noted that while the Applicant’s factual allegations met the definition of enforced disappearance, the identified procedural defects prevented the Court from assessing the substantive merits of the claim. Therefore, the Court found that the Applicant lacked standing for the application in his personal capacity.

Court Decision:

The Court:

Declared it has jurisdiction to determine the case.

Declared the application inadmissible for lack of legal standing.

Ordered all parties to bear their costs.

Judicial Panel:

The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising:

• Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur)
• Hon. Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara (Member)
• Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante (Member)