Abstract:
The ECOWAS Court of Justice is the first human rights body to find a
violation of the African region’s women’s rights treaty, the African
Women’s Protocol. Nearly 15 years after the adoption of this Protocol, the
ECOWAS Court determined in Dorothy Njemanze & 3 Others v Nigeria
that the Nigerian state violated the rights of women because state agents
assumed they were sex workers and, therefore, discriminated against
them and treated them violently. Significantly, the Court determined that
the state violated the women’s rights to dignity, as well as their right not
to be arbitrarily detained and arrested. However, a feminist analysis of this
case reveals that the ECOWAS Court’s judgment protected women who
are not sex workers at the expense of sex workers’ rights. This article
critically examines how the ECOWAS Court developed its jurisdiction in this
case, with a particular focus on how the Court’s strategic avoidance of the
topic of sex work resulted in a judgment that is harmful to sex workers.
The article reconceptualises the Court’s reasoning to provide alternative
approaches for interpreting women’s rights, especially sex workers’ rights.
By providing the ECOWAS Court judgment with an alternative approach, which includes an analysis of the right to work and the right to dignity,
through the application of the African Women’s Protocol and other human
rights instruments, the article provides a feminist and inclusive perspective
on how women’s rights could be approached in future judgments and
litigation efforts.
