1. On 31 December 2014, the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) received a Communication submitted jointly by the Community Law Centre of the University of the Western Cape, Alliance Africa, the Women Ad vocacy Research and Documentation Centre and the Centre for Reproductive Rights (the Complainants) on behalf of five (5) women in Nigeria (the victims) who suffer from lifelong injuries such as obstetric fistulas, haemorrhage, and those who have died as a result of complications related to pregnancy or childbirth.
2. The complaint was filed against the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Respondent State), a State party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter).
3. The Complainants argue that thousands of Nigerian women have lost their lives because the Respondent State failed to provide adequate access to maternal health care services. The Complainants further argue that most of those deaths could have been prevented, as the reasons why women die during
pregnancy or childbirth are well known. These include problems such as haemorrhage, unsafe abortion, eclampsia, infection, dystocia and other direct causes.
4. The Complainants assert that maternal mortality is a matter of social injustice and deserves urgent responses from the Respondent State. They claim that the low status of women, gender inequality and lack of respect for their human rights often worsen the maternal mortality situation in the country.
5. The Complainants submit that although the Respondent State is one of the world's leading oil producers and the largest exporter in the region, the maternal mortality situation in the country is appalling and one of the highest in the world. They add that the maternal mortality rate is estimated 640 deaths for 100,000 live births.
6. The Complainants also claim that the Respondent States per capita health expenditure (sic) of $136 is among the lowest in the compared to other less well-endowed countries that spend more on health.
7. The Complainants contend that, according to their analysis of budgetary allocations to health and defence in the Respondent State over the last three years, the State spends more on the military and defence than on the health of its population. The Complainants state that this is contrary to the provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol), which urges States to reduce military expenditure in order to free up more resources to address the challenges facing women in the region.
8. The Complainants contend that since only women get pregnant and run the risk of dying during childbirth, spending more oh the military and defence at the expense of women's development is an act"of discrimination and therefore a violation of women's rights.
9. The Complainants highlight that the Respondent State's average expenditure on health is about 6%, which is far from the 15% buaget allocation agreed in the Abuja Declaration in 2001. The Complainants further argue that a rights- based approach to maternal mortality requires a State to devote the maximum of its available resources to sexual and reproductive health services.
10. The Complainants aver that the allegations they raise concern massive violations of women's rights to health, life and dignity and that, as such, the Respondent State is expected to be aware of the situation. The Complainants assert that several reports of the Respondent State suggest that maternal mortality is a major challenge in the country.
11. The Complainants also argue that the Respondent State, although aware of the deaths ofthousands of women during pregnancy and childbirth in the country, has done little to effectively remedy the situation. They add that the lack of
action by the State, according to some of the Commission's decisions, means that local remedies are not available or, even if they are, that they are not effective or sufficient to remedy the alleged violations.
