1 Mauritania ceased to be a member in 2002. ECOWAS now has 15 members. It is instructive to note that some members of ECOWAS are also members of the West African Economic and Monetary Union and the Community of Sahel-Saharan States.

2 See the text of the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States reproduced in 1975 UN Treaty Series 1010, 17.

3 ECOWAS is one of the eight regional economic communities that are to be the building blocks of the African Economic Community.

4 The Revised Treaty, which is the current treaty, was accepted in July 1993 in Cotonou, Benin and entered into force in 1993. The text is available at:<http://www.comm.ecowas.int/sec/index.php?id=treaty&lang=en> (last accessed 19 June 2011). The Revised Treaty is a product of a Committee of Eminent Persons established in 1990 to review the ECOWAS treaty.

5 Until January 2007, the ECOWAS Commission was known as the Executive Secretariat. The ECOWAS Commission is now composed of nine members.

6 See art 6 of the Revised Treaty.

7 [1963] ECR 1.

8 See sec 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides: “No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” See Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria v Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria [2008] 2 NWLR (pt 1072) 575.

9 Sec 75(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that the president may execute or cause to be executed treaties, agreements or conventions in the name of Ghana. Sec 75(2) provides that a treaty, agreement or convention executed by or under the authority of the president shall be subject to ratification by (a) an act of Parliament or (b) a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than half of all the members of Parliament. See Dankwa, EO “Implementation of international human rights: Ghana as an illustration” (1991) 3 African Society of International & Comparative Law ProceedingsGoogle Scholar 57.

10 See art 40(4)ii of the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution.

11 Sec 79(1)c of the 1997 Gambian Constitution.

12 Sec 57 of the Liberian Constitution.

13 See sec 1(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. See also sec 1(2) of the Constitution of Ghana: “The Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution should, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

14 See the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004.

15 (2000) 6 NWLR (pt 660) 228. See also Ogugu v State (1994) 9 NWLR (pt 366) 1.

16 See Oshevire v British Caledonian Airways Ltd (1990) 7 NWLR (pt 163) 507 at 519–20: “An international agreement embodied in a convention or treaty is autonomous, as the high contracting persons have submitted themselves to be bound by its provisions which are above domestic legislation. Thus any domestic legislation in conflict with the convention is void.” See also UAC (NIG) Ltd v Global Transport SA (1996) 5 NWLR (pt 448) 291.

17 See however Enabulele, AO “Implementation of treaties in Nigeria and the status question: Whither Nigerian courts” (2009) 17 African Journal of International and Comparative LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar 326 supporting the view of the minority judgment in Abacha, above at note 15, that domesticated treaties are not superior to municipal legislation.

18 [1993] NLPR 73.

19 Id at 82.

20 See Jinadu J in Abiola v Abacha [1998] 1 HRLRA who pointed out that, because of this fact, Nigerian courts will interpret domestic statutory laws in such a way that they are compatible with Nigeria's responsibility not to be in breach of international laws.

21 See art 1 of the Revised Treaty.

22 These protocols are available at: <http://www.ecowas.int> (last accessed 5 March 2010).

23 See art 9(5) and (6) of the Revised Treaty.

24 Protocol A7P.3/5/82 Relating to the Definition of Community Citizen defines the criteria for ECOWAS citizenship.

25 Art 27 provides that: “(1) citizens of member states shall be regarded as Community citizens, and accordingly Member States undertake to abolish all obstacles to their freedom of movement and residence within the Community. (2) Member States shall by agreements with each other exempt Community citizens from holding visitor's visas and residence permits and allow them to work and undertake commercial and industrial activities within their territories.”

26 Protocol A/P.1/5/79 adopted in Dakar, Senegal on 29 May 1979.

27 See Supplementary Protocol A/SP/.17/86 on the Second Phase (Right of Residence) of the Free Movement Protocol.

28 Id, art 4 exempts the civil service of a member state unless the national laws provide otherwise.

29 Supplementary Protocol A7SP.2/5/90 on the Implementation of the Third Phase (Right of Establishment) of the Free Movement Protocol.

30 A chronicle of the implementation of the Free Movement Protocol can be seen in the following works: Onwuka, RI “The ECOWAS Protocol on the Free Movement of Persons: A threat to Nigerian security?” (1982) 81 African AffairsGoogle Scholar 193; Afolayan, AA “Immigration and expulsion of ECOWAS aliens in Nigeria” (1988) 22 International Immigration ReviewGoogle Scholar 4; Brown, ML “Nigeria and the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement and Residence” (1989) 27 The Journal of Modern African StudiesGoogle Scholar 251.

31 See J Agyei and E Clottey “Operationalising ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of People Among the Member States: Issues of convergence, divergence and prospects for sub-regional integration”, available at: <http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/CLOTTEY%20and%20AGYEI.pdf> (Last accessed 23 July 2009).

32 Ibid (footnotes omitted).

33 Suit no ECW/CCJ/APP/01/03.

34 The functions of the Council of Ministers include: making recommendations to the Authority on any action aimed at attaining the objectives of the community; by the powers delegated to it by the Authority, issue directives on matters concerning co-ordination and harmonization of economic integration policies; and requesting the Community Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

35 Established by art 14 of the Revised Treaty.

36 Established by art 21 of the Revised Treaty.

37 Based on art 4(e) and art 11 of the ECOWAS Treaty, the ECOWAS Court was established in 1991 through Protocol A/P/1/7/91 of 6 July 1991 on the Community Court of Justice (1991 ECOWAS Court Protocol). A supplementary protocol A/SP.1/01/05 of 2005 (2005 ECOWAS Court Protocol) amended the 1991 protocol.

38 Inserted by the 2005 ECOWAS Court Protocol.

39 On a comparative note see art 32 of the Protocol Establishing the SADC Tribunal. In Loius Fick v Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe (case no 77881/2009), the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng division) registered the rulings of the South African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal delivered on 28 November 2008 (Mike Campbell PVT v The Republic of Zimbabwe: SADC (T) case no 2/2007) and 5 June 2009 (Mike Campbell v Republic of Zimbabwe: SADC(T) 03/2009). For an overview of these cases, see Ruppel, OC “The SADC Tribunal, regional integration and human rights: Major challenges, legal dimensions and some comparative aspects from the European legal order” (2009) 2 Recht in AfrikaGoogle Scholar 213.

40 Chap F35 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

41 It is generally acknowledged that it was the denial of access to Mr Afolabi in Olajide, above at note 33, that precipitated the review that led to the 2005 ECOWAS Court Protocol and the grant of individual access to the court.

42 By the provisions of art 10(c) of the 2005 ECOWAS Court Protocol, individuals and corporate bodies can bring proceedings to determine an act or inaction of a community official which violates their rights. By art 10(d) of the same protocol they can also bring an application for relief for the violation of their human rights.

43 ECW/CCJ/APP/08/08 (judgment delivered on 27 October 2009).

44 See the cases of Okogie v Attorney General of Lagos State (1981) 2 NCLR 350 and Oronto Douglas v Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (1999) 2 NWLR (pt 591) 466. See Ibe, S “Beyond justiciability: Realising the promise of socio-economic rights in Nigeria” (2007) 7 African Human Rights Law Journal 225Google Scholar.

45 See for example the cases of Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1981 1 All NLR 1 and Thomas v Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (pt 18) 669.

46 (2001) AHRLR 60.

47 Above at notes 45 and 44 respectively.

48 Case no ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08 of 27 October 2008.

49 The African Court of Human Rights was established pursuant to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights (The Protocol on the African Court of Human Rights) adopted by the Organization of African Unity at a meeting in Burkina Faso and entered into force on 25 January 2004. There is no provision for the direct effect of the judgments of this court. In this regard rule 61(5) of the court's interim rules provides that the court's judgments shall be binding on the parties. In addition, art 30 of the Protocol on the African Court of Human Rights provides that the states parties to the protocol undertake to comply with the judgment in any case to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the parties. The question of the direct effect of the judgments of the court will become of more importance since it has began work and delivered its first judgment. See In the Matter of Michelot Yogombaye v The Republic of Senegal: application no 001/2008 (judgment delivered on 15 December 2009), available at: <http://www.africancourtcoalition.org/content_files/files/case_No1_2008_Yogogomabye_v_Senegal.pdf> (last accessed 7 May 2010).

50 See HN Donli “The law, practice and procedure of the Community Court of Justice: Meaning and implication” (paper presented at the Workshop on Law Practice and Procedure of the Community Court of Justice – ECOWAS, organized by the West African Human Rights Forum, Bamako, Mali, 7–9 December 2006), available at: <http://www.crin.org/docs/ECOWASmeaning.doc> (last accessed 23 July 2009).

51 See Danish Institute for Human Rights “African human rights complaints handling mechanism” (2008) at 112, available at: <http://humanrights.inforce.dk/files/Importerede%20filer/hr/pdf/Dokumenter%20til%20Nyhedsarkiv/African_HR_Complaints_Handling_Mechanisms.pdf> (last accessed 18 June 2011): “The legal framework of the ECOWAS Court is silent on the question of cooperation. Art 10(f), as inserted by the 2005 ECOWAS Court Protocol, allows some form of relationship with national courts in the sense that it allows national courts to refer questions on the interpretation or application of the ECOWAS Treaty and other legal instruments to the national courts, whenever such questions arise in cases before national courts”.

52 See above at note 50.

53 The text of the treaty is available at: <http://www.jurisint.org/Ohada7text.01.en.html (last accessed 28 July 2009).

54 The original members of OHADA are Benin, Burkina Faso, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. Guinea and Guinea Bissau joined later.

55 Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo.

56 See art 13 of the OHADA Treaty.

57 See id, art 3.

58 To date it has issued the following uniform acts: Uniform Act Relating to General Commercial Law; Uniform Act Relating to Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups; Uniform Act Relating to Organizing Securities; Uniform Act Organizing Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution; and Uniform Act Organizing Collective Proceedings for Wiping of Debts.

59 See Rules of Procedure of the Joint Court of Justice and Arbitration, available at: <http://www.juriscope.org> (last accessed 27 July 2009).

60 See Dickerson, CM “Harmonising business laws in Africa: OHADA calls the tune” (2005) 44 Columbia Journal of Transnational LawGoogle Scholar 17.

61 See Kuffuor, KThe Institutional Transformation of the Economic Community of West African States (2006, Ashgate)Google Scholar at 91–112.

62 See R Oppong “Making regional economic community laws enforceable in national legal systems: Constitutional and judicial challenges” in A Bosl, T Hartzenberg, W Breytenbach, C Mccarthy and K Schade (eds) Monitoring Regional Integration in Southern Africa Yearbook, Vol 8, available at:<http://www.tralac.org/cause_data/images/1694/MRI2008Chapter7Oppong.pdf> (last accessed 3 April 2010).