THE FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
1. The communication is submitted by a Nigerian student who was in transit
from New Delhi to Lagos. He complains that at the Cairo airport, on 20
September 1986, while he was waiting for his connecting flight, Colonel
Mohamed El Adile of the Egyptian police stamped a false entry visa for Egypt
on his travel papers.
2. As a consequence, his luggage was searched. A suitcase bearing another
person's name, of a different weight than that recorded on his ticket, and
for which he had no key, was ascribed to him. The Egyptian police did not
ask the airline to identify the owner of the suitcase. Drugs were found in
3. In the presence of two Nigerian diplomats, Mr. Njoku denied that the
suitcase was his. A police officer wrote down a statement in Arabic, which
the three signed, without it having been translated for them. The subsequent
trial was held behind closed doors, without a translator being present for
4. Apparently, the Arabic statement signed by the complainant contained the
admission that the suitcase was his. The complainant did have a lawyer, but
complains that the lawyer was ineffective and appeared afraid of the judge.
The trial lasted only 5 minutes and there was no translator present. The
complainant was given a life sentence under a law specifying this punishment
for importers of drugs who have visas for Egypt, whose final destination is
Egypt and who cross into Egyptian territory. The complaint argues that none
of these three conditions applies to him, as he was a transit passenger with
no Egyptian visa who wished to remain in the airport. The complainant's
appeal was rejected.
5. Article 33 of the Egyptian criminal code prohibits the searching of
transit passengers. The complainant argues that the interception and search
of transit passengers is a common practice by the Egyptian police, and has
been condemned by Dr. Adwar Gali of the Legal Commission of Egypt. The
former director of the Drug Enforcement Agency has stated that the Egyptian
criminal code nowhere provides for transit related cases and that Egypt is
intercepting people only because of international conventions on drug abuse.
6. The complainant argues that the judge who sentenced him, Mr. Anwe Gebali,
believed the testimony of the police colonel who forged the Egyptian visa in
the complainant's passport.. The complainant exhausted his last appeal in
Facts according to the Government of Egypt:
7. The government agrees that on the date in question the complainant was
arrested in the transit lounge at Cairo airport, and that the visa for Egypt
was stamped in his passport only so that he could be admitted into Egypt for
investigations of the case, but that the time at which he acquired the visa
was found irrelevant by the courts. The government representative stated at
the 19th session that the transit area is "a free zone for customs only",
not for crime, and under the anti-drug convention of New York states parties
may not permit individuals to carry drugs into another state party.
8. The government states that the validity of the complainant's arrest in
the transit lounge was raised by his lawyer during his trial, and that this
was his first grounds for overturning his conviction on appeal, but the
Supreme Court refused his appeal and the conviction became final.
9. The government states that the complainant then availed himself of a
special process by which appeal to the attorney general is possible, and
raised the point that the confession attributed to him was not valid. The
government said that in the attorney general's review of the case it was
found that the court did recognise that the complainant had denied guilt in
the case; no confession was used.
10. The government states that the complainant had access to all the
protections of Egyptian law, that during the investigations he was
represented by a private attorney, a representative of the Nigerian
consulate, and during the trial he had a lawyer chosen by the bar
association and paid for by the court. As evidenced by the appeals brought
before the high court, the supreme court, and the court of cassation, the
lawyer did a competent job.
11. The government states that the complainant was tried and convicted under
the 1961 Egyptian drug law, which was in force in 1986. This law was revised
in 1995, but the changes made the law more harsh and would not be to the
advantage of the complainant.
12. The government further claims that the communication is inadmissible
because the Working Group of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the UN decided not to take
any action in respect of a communication from Mr. Njoku.
13. The communication is dated 10 October 1989. It was originally sent to
the Secretary General of the OAU, who forwarded it to the Commission. It was
received on 12 April 1990.
14. The Commission was seized of the communication at the 7th Ordinary
Session, and the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Justice of
Egypt were notified on 31 May 1990. The complainant was also notified of
15. Between 1990 and 1995, several letters were exchanged between the
Secretariat and the parties to ascertain the various issues raised by the
protagonists as well as the exhaustion of local remedies.
16. At the 17th session, held in March 1995 the Commission declared the
Communication admissible and it was decided that the case should be heard on
its merits at the 18th session.
17. On 31 March 1995, a letter was sent to the complainant stating that his
case had been declared admissible at the 17th session.
18. On 31 March and 20 May 1995 letters were sent to the government of Egypt
requesting further information.
19. On 23 June 1995 copies of the letter of 3 l` March and decision were
sent to him.
20. On 1 September 1995, a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him
for further information with regard to the legal basis for the sentence he
21. On 11 September the complainant responded to the Secretariat's letter of
22. On 30 November 1995 the Secretariat sent a note verbale to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Egypt informing it that it would examine the case at
the 19th session.
23. On 19 December 1995 a letter was sent to the complainant acknowledging
receipt of his previous three letters, and informing him that his case would
be heard on its merits at the 19th session.
24. On 20 December 1995 the complainant wrote to the Secretariat with
details on a court judgement relating to transit cases, enclosing a
photocopied newspaper article describing the judgement, and a translation of
it that he had made.
25. On 23 January 1996, the Secretariat of the Commission sent a copy of the
complainant's 20 December 1996 letter and a copy of the newspaper article to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt.
26. On 13 February 1996 the Commission received a letter, dated 6 February
1996, from the Embassy of Egypt in Dakar with a copy of the government's
submission on the case.
27. At the 19th session, in March 1996, the Commission heard the
representative of the Egyptian Government, but deferred taking a final
decision, pending receipt from the Egyptian Government of the Egyptian law
or laws under which the complaint was dealt with.
28. On 26 July 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the complainant
acknowledging receipt of the letter of 8 May 1996 and stating that as he
could not appear in person at the session in October 1996, he requested that
the Secretary or an NGO represent him.
29. On 1 August 1996 a copy of the Secretariat's last letter to the
complainant was sent to the priest indicated by the complainant. With it was
sent a summary of the presentation of the government at the 19th session.
30. On same date a copy of the Secretariat's letter of 8 May 1996,
requesting copies of laws, was sent to the government of Egypt. With it was
sent a summary of the presentation of the government at the 19th session,
for the government's approval.
31. On 13 August 1996 the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the letter
dated 22 June and informed the complainant that as neither the Secretary nor
the Commission could represent him at the session, a list of NG0s was
attached whom he could contact.
32. On 13 August 1996 the Secretariat sent a letter to the Egyptian
Organisation for Human Rights requesting that they represent Mr. Njoku at
33. On 13 August 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the complainant
informing it that he had already contacted the Egyptian Human Rights
Organisation who had agreed to represent him at the session.
34. On 27 August 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the complainant
giving the names of the two lawyers who would be representing him at the
20th session, in their private capacities.
35. On 23 September 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the Egyptian
Organisation for Human Rights with the complainant's power of attorney.
36. On 8 October 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the complainant
stating that his punishment was harsher than authorised by Egyptian law.
37. On 9 October 1996 the Secretariat received a note verbale from the
Embassy of Egypt in Dakar giving additional information and asking whether
it would still be necessary to send a representative to the 20th session of
38. The same date, the Secretariat sent a letter to the Embassy of Egypt in
Dakar acknowledging receipt of the latter's note verbale of the 9 October
1996 and answering that the Secretariat still found it important that Egypt
send a representative to the 20th session.
39. On 21 October 1996 the Secretariat received a letter from the
representative of the complainant asking the Commission to postpone the
consideration of the communication because of new information.
40. At the 20th session held in Grand Bay, Mauritius, October 1996, the
Commission decided to postpone the decision to the following session.
41. On 10 December 1996 a note verbale to this effect was sent to the
government. The note verbale also asked the government to send relevant laws
to the Secretariat.
42. On the same date, the Secretariat sent a letter to the complainant,
informing him of the decision of the Commission to postpone the
consideration of the Communication.
43. On 10 January 1997 the Secretariat sent a letter to Mr. Monieb,
informing him of the decision taken by the Commission at its 20th Session.
44. On 23 January 1997 the Secretariat received a note verbale from the
Embassy of Egypt in Dakar, informing the Secretariat that the Working Group
on Communications of the Sub
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of
the UN had decided not to take any action in respect of a communication
submitted by Mr. Njoku.
45. On 31 January 1997 the Secretariat received a letter from Mr. Njokii
summarising his case and giving examples of Egyptian case-law in drug
46. On 3 February 1997 the Secretariat sent an acknowledgement of receipt to
Mr. Njoku, enclosing a copy of the Embassy's letter of 23 January 1997.
47. On 11 February 1997 the Secretariat sent a letter to the Embassy of
Egypt in Dakar informing it that all relevant information would be taken up
by the Commission at its 21st session and requesting it once more to send
copies of the relevant laws.
48. On 8 April 1997, the Secretariat received letters from the complainant
reiterating the facts of the case and indicating cases of individuals
prosecuted on similar grounds and who, according to the complainant,
received lighter sentences.
49. On 23 April 1997, the Secretariat renewed its request to the Embassy of
Egypt in Senegal for the provision of the relevant legislative enactment
against drug trafficking, as well as examples of case-law dealing with
passengers on transit charged with drug trafficking. The Embassy was also
informed of cases presented to the Secretariat by Mr. Ngozi Njoku.
50. On 21 May 1997, the Secretariat received a note verbale from the Embassy
of Egypt in Senegal forwarding copies of the legislative instruments in
force relating to drug trafficking in Arabic (as well as amendments made
thereto) as requested by the Commission. The Note verbale also underscored
that there was no special law applicable to passengers on transit in Egypt
and therefore that the latter were subject to the same law.
51. On 28 May 1997, the Secretariat informed the complainant of the
52. On 9 July 1997, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the
complainant's last letter and on the same day sent a note verbale to the
Embassy of Egypt seeking the reaction of its government to the information
provided by Mr. Ngozi Njoku.
53. At the 22 nd Ordinary Session held in Banjul, (The Gambia) from 2 to 11
November 1997, the Commission took a decision on the merits of the case.
54. Article 56, paragraph 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights stipulates inter alia that -communications shall be considered if
they do not deal with cases which have been settled in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the
Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter."
55. The defendant state maintains that the communication should be declared
inadmissible on the grounds that the working group of the United Nations
sub-commission on the prevention and protection of minorities seized of the
matter by Mr. Ngozi Njoku decided not to entertain the case.
56. The Commission, considering the provisions of the above-mentioned
article, observes that the said text talks about "cases which have been
settled…’’ It is therefore of the view that the decision of the United
Nations sub-commission not to take any action and therefore not to pronounce
on the communication submitted by the complainant does not boil down to a
decision on the merits of the case and does not in any way indicate that the
matter has been settled as envisaged under article 56 paragraph 7 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Commission therefore
rejected the arguments of the defendant.
57. On the issue of exhaustion of local remedies as provided for by article
56 paragraph 5, the Commission observes that the complainant has exhausted
all local remedies provided for by Egyptian Law, including the possibility
of having the case reviewed. Moreover, the government has not indicated
existence of remedies other than those used by the complainant.
58. For all these reasons, the Commission declared the communication
59. Both the complainant and the defendant (State) admit that Mr. Ngozi
Njoku was arrested in the transit zone of Cairo airport on 20 September
1986, whilst he was on his way to Lagos from New Delhi. They also admit that
drug was found in a suitcase which was alleged to belong to the Complainant,
the latter was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, that he was
provided with the services of a Lawyer and that he exhausted all local
remedies in 1991.
60. Apart from these points of convergence, the rest of the communication
contains serious divergences as regards the information provided by the
parties. It does not however behove the Commission to judge the facts. This
is the responsibility of the Egyptian courts.
61. The role of the Commission in such a case is to ensure that during the
process from the arrest to a the conviction of Mr. Ngozi Njoku, no provision
of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was violated. It is also
incumbent on it to ensure that the defendant state respected and indeed
enforced its own law in total good faith. To all these questions, the
Commission responded in the affirmative.
ON THESE GROUNDS,
1. The Commission considers that no provision of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights has been violated and therefore declares the
2. Gives mandate to Commissioner Isaac Nguema to pursue his good offices
with the Egyptian government with a view to obtaining clemency for Mr. Ngozi
Njoku on purely humanitarian grounds.
Taken at the 22nd Ordinary Session, Banjul (Gambia) on 11 November 1997.