ECOWAS Court Rules Internet Access a Human Right

The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has ruled that access to the internet is a fundamental human right. The court stated this right is inherent within the right to freedom of expression and is essential for accessing information and exercising other related rights.

This landmark judgment was delivered on August 18, 2026, in a case filed by Nigerian journalist Jide Oyekunle against the Nigerian government. Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Goncalves presided over the case, alongside Justices Sengu Mohamed Koroma and Edward Amoako Asante. Oyekunle, then Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalists' FCT Correspondents Chapel, was represented by his lawyer, Collins Maidoh-Anene.

The Journalist's Allegations

Jide Oyekunle claimed his rights were violated on August 1, 2024, while he was covering a peaceful 'End Bad Governance' protest as a journalist for the Independent newspaper. He alleged police fired tear gas at protesters. While seeking refuge, he said he was attacked and assaulted by police officers who seized his mobile phone. The officers claimed he was not authorized to perform a live recording of the event.

Oyekunle stated his camera was damaged and he was detained for approximately eight hours. He was charged with invasion of property and participation in an illegal assembly before being released following intervention by FCT Police Command spokesperson Josephine Adeh.

The Government's Defense and the Court's Findings

The Federal Government, represented by Mrs. Maimuna Lami Shiru, denied all allegations. It insisted police officers "did not act aggressively against any protester and did not violate anyone’s rights." The government claimed Oyekunle was "a violent protester" who refused police orders restricting access to the Three Arms Zone. It argued his detention was legal and he was released immediately after identifying himself.

The court found the government's defense lacking. It noted the government failed to provide evidence to support its claims of protest violence or Oyekunle's alleged violent behavior, despite bearing the burden of proof. Crucially, the court stated the government did not show which legal provisions justified the use of tear gas or the journalist's arrest.

The court stressed that any restriction on freedom of expression must be provided by law, have a legitimate objective, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. It ruled that "the principle of legality has not been respected in this case."

Internet Access as a Human Right

In its reasoning, the court explicitly declared that "access to the Internet is a right within the right to freedom of expression." It stated the internet's accessibility and capacity to store and communicate information matters in improving public access to news.

This understanding, the court explained, aligns with its prior judgments in cases from Guinea and Togo. It also follows the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 26/13, which asserts that the same rights people have offline must be protected online, particularly freedom of expression.

The court anchored this right in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Articles 9 and 27(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Violations and the Ruling

The court concluded the Nigerian government violated multiple international statutes. It found violations of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 9 and 27(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

On the claim of arbitrary detention, the court noted detention occurs "as soon as an individual is forcibly held." It becomes arbitrary when it breaches national or international law due to a lack of legitimate grounds. The court found the photos and video evidence submitted by Oyekunle, which showed police officers holding him, corroborated his account. The government's admission of the detention, coupled with its failure to provide concrete evidence of its legality, led the court to accept the journalist's version of events.

The court awarded Jide Oyekunle compensation for the violations.