 President of the Court, Lady Justice Imani Daudabudu, thank you very much for the kind invitation to participate in this opening of the African Court on Human and People's Rights, the judicial year 2022, and for the honor of delivering these remarks to this very distinguished government. Please accept the felicitations of the head of state and president of Nigeria, His Excellency President Mohammad Buhari, and the federal government of Nigeria on this very important occasion. I also congratulate the Court on its achievements in advancing human and people's rights in Africa since its operationalization in 2006. I particularly congratulate the honorable Justices of this Court past and present, as well as the registrar and his team. The successes that the Court has recorded in its short existence would not have been possible without your hard work and sacrifice. I also extend the warm greetings of our government, to sister regional human rights institutions, represented at this ceremony, notably the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, the African Commission, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These three institutions, the African Court, the African Commission, and the African Committee form the tripod on which our continent erects its human rights architecture. The theme of this judicial year, the African Court and the Africa we want, is apt indeed. It echoes Agenda 2063, the Africa we want, with its seven forward-looking aspirations. The AU Handbook 2018 describes Agenda 2063 as a unique opportunity to rewrite the African narrative with a view to instilling enthusiasm and impetus into the African population and using their constructive energy to define and implement a feasible program for unity, for peace and development, during the 21st century. All AU member states and organs and even regional economic communities are required to align their development with Agenda 2063 and its first 10-year implementation plan. As an AU organ, the African Court is obviously making a statement with this carefully crafted theme that it intends to work with other stakeholders for the Africa we want. To further set the context for my remarks, perhaps it might be helpful to quickly track the African Human Rights Protection Journey to this point. Africa, as we all know, joins the global regional human rights family when the AU adopted the African Charter on Human and People's Rights in 1981, and there is no question about the African Charter's positive impact on international and national practice of human rights. Africa has since joined other regional human rights families, speaking a common language and bonding with Europe and the Inter-Americans. For two decades, the African Charter entered, for two decades after the African Charter entered into, entered into force. The African Commission was the sole human rights ombudsman at the continental level. Like all quasi-judicial or judicial institutions, the African Commission carries out its mandate within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by its constitutive treaty. After about a decade of experiment in regional human rights protection, the normative and institutional deficiencies in the African Charter became too manifest to be ignored, propelled then by civil society, the African Commission and other stakeholders, African states adopted the Ouagadubu Protocol in 1998 to make institutional human rights protection fit for purpose. Article 2 of the protocol establishes the African courts to complement the protective mandate of the African Commission. The protocol also contains some innovative provisions, for example, Article 27, which authorizes the court to order provisional measures in situations of extreme emergency and to provide reparation after findings of breaches of human and people's rights. By the terms of Article 30, each state party undertakes to comply with the judgments or orders in any case to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the court and to guarantee its execution. Article 29 mandates the AU Executive Council to monitor the execution of the court's judgments on behalf of the AU Assembly. Clearly the Ouagadubu Protocol addresses the difference stakeholders, the courts, the states, the parties and AU institutions besides provisions directed at the African Commission and even non-state entities. So this organic arrangement underscores the multi-dimensional task of advancing human rights in Africa. The concept note for this ceremony provides information indicating that as of December 2021 the court received about 330 applications and issued about 200 decisions. In the court's 16 years of existence these statistics translate to about 20 applications and 12 decisions per year, a significant achievement for a young continental institution with obvious teeth in challenges. My brief is further to provide some answers to the question of the role of the African court in bringing about the Africa we want. First is of course to determine the Africa we want. In doing so I think it is best to identify the challenges and burdens which we must discharge to arrive at the type of continent that we want and then ask the question what the court is doing by its mandate and practice to relieve those burdens. These burdens, some of which have been described by Agenda 2063 itself as humanity's most pressing concerns include poverty or the eradication of poverty, hunger and disease, the sustenance of democracy and the rule of law, the environment and sustainable development, especially the challenges of climate change and then human security and peace. But when we ask or task the court about how through its interpretive interpretive and promotional mandates it is promoting the Africa we want, we are also speaking to and asking some of its sister agencies. We're saying that the court is as we've noted earlier only a part of a tripod. So we will use the court's jurisprudence and those of its sister agencies to reflect on some of these issues that are crucial in arriving at the Africa we want. The first issue is poverty and socioeconomic rights. In 2015 the AU celebrated Africa's sustained levels of economic growth but noted with concern the persistent unemployment and health issues. It admitted that a significant proportion of our populations remain vulnerable to challenges of economic marginalization, hunger and malnutrition. It stressed the same problem in Agenda 2063 lamenting that children continue to die of preventable diseases, that women continue to die while given birth and that hunger and malnutrition remain part of the human experience despite advances in technology and know-how and all of these attributes of ensuring a decent standard of living and human security for all. These problems have existed with us for decades which explain why the Africa decided to enshrine socioeconomic rights in the African Charter and other regional human rights instruments. The Africa Charter notes that it is henceforth essential to pay particular attention to the right to development and that civil and political rights cannot be dissociated from economic, social and cultural rights in their conception as well as universality and the satisfaction of economic, social and cultural rights is a guarantee for the enjoyment of civil and political rights. I believe that these are imperatives that have guided and should continue to guide regional mechanisms in their interpretation of the African Charter and related instruments. The Africa Commission and the Africa Committee have adjudicated on various socioeconomic rights in a manner that should serve as persuasive authority for the court. In the case of Purohit and more versus Gambia, the Africa Commission reaffirmed Africa's Charter, the African Charter's guarantee of the right to health. It held that the right to health includes the right to health facilities and access to goods and services. Also the commission in the center on housing rights and evictions versus the Sudan or the Kori case was more detailed in its exposition of the right to health under Article 16 by relying on the interpretation of the right to health under international law. The commission agreed with the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights in its comment number 14 on the right to health, which was adopted in the year 2000, that the right to health extends not only to timely and appropriate health care, but also to the underlying determinants of health such as access to safe and portable water and adequate supply of housing, food, nutrition and also in terms of the general comment, the right to health contains four elements. It argue that these elements would include availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality and that these rights also impose three obligations on states to respect, fulfill and protect the rights. In terms of the duty to protect, states must ensure that third parties, non-state actors, do not infringe upon the enjoyment of the right to health. In another of the cases, APDF and IHRDA, that was Mali, which has decided on its merits, the African committee held that minimal access to health facilities, a lower level of contact with health, with health promoting measures and medical assistance and a lack of provision of primary and therapeutic health resources and programs is inconsistent with the right of the child to the highest attainable standard of health. The commission, the African commission in the social and economic rights action center, SARAC and center for economic and social rights versus Nigeria case was commendably created in extending the scope of economic and social rights by adopting an approach of implied rights. The commission, for example, held that although the right to housing and shelter are not provided in the charter, activating the provisions of article 14, 16 and 18 on the rights to property to enjoy the best attainable state of mental and physical health, the prohibition of the wanton destruction of shelter respectively would imply a right to housing and shelter. The device of implied rights in the Africa charter was adopted as a resolution of the commission in 2004 and the commission in the following words, the economic and social rights explicitly provided for under the African charter, red together with other rights in the charter such as the rights of life and respect for inherent human dignity imply the recognition of other economic and social rights, including the right to shelter, the right to basic nutrition and the right to social security. As noted by a distinguished author, Sayon Jo, in the Kory case, he notes that in the Kory case the commission upheld the position that article 16 of the African charter implicitly protects the rights to adequate food and housing and of course that will include the prohibition on forced evictions and also guarantees the right to water, rights without which the right to health itself will be empty. It appears that thus far the commission's approach is accepted as reflecting a correct reading of the African charter and one that is consistent with international human rights law. Although the African court has not so far made a pronouncement on the normative scope of socioeconomic rights, it is obvious that it will have to do so or may have to do so in the coming years or be prepared to do so. The court must be prepared to answer questions such as was raised in the request for advisory opinion by the socioeconomic rights and accountability project SARAP in 2016 as to whether extreme systemic and widespread poverty is a violation of certain provisions of the African charter, in particular article 2 would prohibit discrimination based on status. The court in that case I believe did not consider the request as it considered that SARAP was not an African organization within the context of the charter The third issue is the environment and sustainable development, the environment and sustainable development. The free sustainable development is an elastic term that encompasses economic environmental and social sustainability. The essential idea of ecological sustainability is the necessity to protect and restore the ecosystem while fostering peace, security, economic and social development. For example, the Africa Union envisions a continent with climate resilient economies and communities where the environment and ecosystems are healthy and preserved. In its decision on social and economic rights action center and another and Nigeria, the case to which I earlier referred, the communication in that case alleges that the military government of Nigeria had been directly involved in oil production through the state oil company, the NNPC. The majority shareholder in a consortium with the SARAP Petroleum Development Corporation and that these operations were without regard to the health or environment of the local communities and caused environmental degradation and health problems resulting from the contamination of the environment amongst the Ogoni people. While upholding the argument of the applicants, the African Law Commission established a linkage between the environment and socioeconomic rights stressing that a clean and safe environment affects the quality of life and safety of the individual. The commission held in Teralia that the right to a general satisfactory environment as guaranteed under Article 24 of the African Charter or the right to a healthy environment as it is widely known therefore imposes clear obligations upon governments. It requires the state to take reasonable and other measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation, to promote conservation and to secure and ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights to which Nigeria is a party also requires governments to take necessary steps for the improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene. The right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health enunciated in Article 161 of the African Charter and the right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to development already also obligates governments to desist from directly threatening health and the environment of citizens. The state is under an obligation as a court health, as a commission held to respectfully just noted rights and these entails largely non interventionist conduct from the state. For example, not in any way tolerating practices or policies or legal measures that violate the integrity of the individual. Government compliance with the spirit and articles of Article 16 and Article 24 and of the African Charter must also include ordering or at least permitting independent scientific monitoring of threatened environments requiring the public the publicizing of environmental and social impact studies prior to any major industrial undertaking and these undertake and also undertaking appropriate monitoring measures and providing information to communities exposed to hazardous material and activities and also providing meaningful opportunities for individuals to be heard and to participate in the development decisions affecting their communities. Of course these issues of the environment have assumed greater urgency since the Paris agreements on climate change and lately COP26. So the statements of the court were farsighted and are more relevant now than ever before. Nigeria has since drawn up an energy transition plan and an integrated energy plan to meet the demands of transition to net zero by 2060. The plan takes into account mitigation against pollution and the transition from heavy pollutants such as firewood and kerosene for cooking to the use of LPG. What a major challenge is for developing countries is that well their countries are proposing to defund gas projects as part of the decarbonization initiatives but this will mean that conversion to gas for clean cooking will be stored and of course it is important for African countries to speak in one voice. Africans after all at the least pollutants and the worst affected by climate change and it's important for Africans to see this as a developmental issue and not just a climate change issue and ensure that well their countries are made to not just to ensure that they comply with their obligations in all of the Paris agreements especially to fund adaptive and mitigation measures but also to desist from the public funding of gas projects. The right to development came up for adjudication before the African Commission in the case of the Center for Minority Rights Development and another versus Kenya. The case alleged that the endoroi indigenous people were forcibly displaced from the ancestral lands without prior consultations and adequate and effective compensation for the loss of their property thereby disrupting their pastoral enterprise. The commission held that the forced evictions of these peoples eliminated any choice as to where they would live in effect the absence of consultations left these peoples desenfranchised from a process of utmost importance to their lives as a people and if the respondent state provided conditions to facilitate the R2D as envisaged under the African Charter the development of the game reserve which was in question would have increased the capabilities of those people to be able to have the possibility to benefit from the game reserve. The case is significant in Teralia for elaborating on the contours of the right to development according to the commission the right to development is a two prong test that it is both constitutive and instrumental or useful as both a means and an end. A violation of either the procedural or substantive element constitutes a violation of the right to development fulfilling fulfilling only one of the two prongs will not satisfy the right to development. The commission notes that the complainants arguments that recognizing the right to development requires fulfilling five main criteria and that it must be equitable nondiscriminatory participatory accountable and transparent with equity and choice as important and that these overarching themes are crucial to the enforcement of the right to development. Years later the African Commission itself is stood at a case before this court before the African court against Kenya also alleging a violation of article 22 of the African Charter and this is in the case of the African Commission on Human Rights versus Kenya which was decided on its merits. The case dealt with the eviction of the Ogiek indigenous population from the Mau forest. In notable decision that straddle the right of indigenous peoples the right to life property equality nondiscrimination religion cultural life development and the people's right to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. The African court held that the respondent very similar in some cases to the Nigerian Ogoni case violated the right of the Ogiek people by failing to consult and involve them in developing and determining health housing and other economic and social programs affecting them. I believe that the African court and the commission must continue to develop the jurisprudence on the right to development and to call on states and non-state entities to work for their realization. The relationship between underdevelopment and poverty and national security is already well established and does not require any elaboration. A balanced and integrated economic and social development will contribute to a just international order. It will promote peace and security, social progress, better standards of living, and observance and respect for human rights. The African court and its sister institutions may need to stress these issues in their future jurisprudence on the right to development. The court should also call on states and non-state entities to work for the realization of the right to development. Realizing this right requires collaborative efforts between African governments, citizens, and the international community. Helping poor nations to resolve their economic and social crisis will also prevent or deescalate internal conflicts. And if there is a right to development, Africans should be assured of the full enjoyment of the substantive guarantees that it embodies. And I'll go on very quickly to democracy and unconstitutional changes of governments. Africa has come a long way in her journey, in her democratic journey. Constitutional democracy that safeguards human rights and the rule of law is increasingly being entrenched and is exemplified by the unbroken democratic experiences, especially after military regimes in Nigeria and other countries. The threat that these gains may be reversed explains the anxiety over the recent coups dita in Mali, in Chad, in Guinea, in Sudan, and Bukina Faso, and of course the attempt in Guinea-Bissau. Such attacks on democracy imply negatively unconstitutionalism on human rights and the rule of law. The Africa Union has made it clear that unconstitutional changes of governments will not be a part and cannot be a part of the Africa we want. We desire an Africa according to the African Charter on democracy, election and governance which promotes the upholding of regular free and fair elections to institutionalize legitimate authority of representative government as well as democratic changes of government. It is refreshing that the African court is also keenly aware of this initiative, of this imperative. In the case of association for peace and human rights and court of all, the court held that the African Charter on democracy forms part of the African Human Rights corpus for which it has jurisdiction to interpret and apply and I respectfully urge the court to reinforce this emergent norms whenever it has the opportunity to interpret the charter and related instruments and also to stress the necessity for good governance as a safeguard against undemocratic and unconstitutional upheavals in African states. Every organ of international and national society must work in solidarity to protect democracy and advance good governance. This is the way that we can secure our basic freedoms. The cost of inaction will be too high for the present and future generations. I think the court in the case of association for peace and human rights and court of all must also be commended for upholding the right of the electorate to independent and impartial electoral umpires and that the umpire ought to be actually and apparently independent and impartial but there are many challenges that remain. We are proud of the African court and its achievements in particular the afrosentic development of human rights jurisprudence. Of course, several challenges will remain. From its concept note, the court has identified three sort challenges. The first is the number of state parties to the WAGADUGU protocol, 32 ratifications in more than 20 years. The second is the fewer number of article 34 section 6 declarations which permit direct access to the court by individuals and non-governmental organizations. Only eight of the 32 state parties have done so and four countries that made the declaration earlier have withdrawn them. The third challenge is the lack of proper enforcement mechanisms either at the domestic or continental level, notwithstanding the WAGADUGU protocols mandate on the AU executive council. Other challenges include the reluctance of some states to respect the court's orders of interim measures not to mention funding problems in the face of competing financial needs within the AU system. I think just to very briefly before taking on one or two of those issues to return to agenda 2063 where the AU declares that the Africa that we want is a continent where democratic values, culture, practices, universal principles of human rights, gender equality, justice and the rule of law are entrenched with capable institutions and transformative leadership in place at all levels. In addition, Afrika's population so the the the the document says will enjoy affordable and timely access to independent courts and judiciary that deliver justice without fail or favor. Corruption and impunity will be a thing of the past. The target date for the realization of these aspirations is 2063. While we all will align ourselves with these lofty goals, I personally do not believe that Africa can afford to wait for another four decades before seeing the full entrenchment of the culture of respect for human rights and the rule of law and wiping out corruption in governments. We must resolve to see a different Africa in our lifetime. The purpose of life after all is here and now and the far future we must take care of but we must ensure that those of us who are here this time enjoy the fruits of all of the struggles of those before us in the entrenchment of our freedoms. We have the capacity to change Africa's narrative and destination. Of course it's worrisome that the kind of enthusiasm displayed by the states after adopting the Africa Charter appears to be lacking with respect to the Wagadugu protocol and the questions that we must ask are whether the states are already fatigued after only four decades of experiments in regional human rights protection and we might ask why there is an unwillingness to execute article 346 and why those who in one way or the other had accepted article 346 by executing the article with you after some years are there things that we could have done differently to prevent those states from withdrawing or even to encourage fresh ratifications of article 346 why are some states unwilling to cooperate with the provisional orders of the court and I think that we need to reflect over these tough questions but we must find common ground as we move forward. There might be a need for further interaction between the courts, member states and civil society on how to work through these issues. The general reluctance of states to concede sovereignty is not peculiar to African states but it is possible for us to be more creative about complementarity for instance. We could consider the possibility and this is and I make these submissions recognizing very clearly that going by the present constitutive documents of the courts and the AU charter we are not in a position to effect what what I'm proposing but I believe that by way of amendments we may be able to at least experiment with some thinking out of the box on complementarity. Could we for instance consider the possibility of the court after its own rulings making some recommendations for the consideration of the supreme courts of member states? This would of course involve further reflection and amendments to constitutive documents where necessary but the point being made is that it should be possible to change tactics from time to time while keeping the strategy and the vision constant. State parties of which I am a representative must also recognize that the ratification of human rights treaties have consequences. Our regional institutions will only be stronger and effective as we want them to be. The African courts, the African commission and the African committee on their part must cooperate with each other in the true spirit of complementarity and must not work across purposes. If they do, if they work together, this will send strong signals to states that a three-fold court is not easily broken. Civil society must continue to defend human rights and monitor governance particularly at the national levels where they matter the most. The effectiveness of the human rights system depends ultimately on the willingness of stakeholders to perform their respective roles. I strongly believe that Africa will overcome its current governance and human rights challenges. The African court is a work in progress. Being a young institution, it needs tending and nurturing. And Arusha, if you permit the cliche like room, was not built in the day. It is in the start of many journeys, the path is usually uneven with obstacles to surmount. The key is for all travelers to keep the end in focus. I wish the African court a very fruitful year ahead and many more giant strikes in the future. Thank you very much.