Lexplug logoLexplug

Doe v. Buratai

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
318 F.Supp.3d 218 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the common law, foreign officials are entitled to conduct-based immunity from suits under the Torture Victim Protection Act for acts performed in their official capacity and ratified by their government, and this immunity is not defeated by allegations that the acts violated jus cogens norms.


Facts:

  • Plaintiffs, identified as John Does, were Nigerian civilians of Igbo ethnicity who were allegedly targeted by Nigerian authorities.
  • Sixteen Nigerian government, military, and police officials, including Tukur Yusuf Buratai, allegedly conspired and agreed to use killings to quash political opposition and terrorize the population.
  • These officials allegedly planned, directed, and executed attacks involving torture and extrajudicial killings against the plaintiffs and other Igbo Nigerians within Nigeria.
  • The alleged acts were carried out by Nigerian military and police forces acting under the command and authority of the defendant officials.
  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria transmitted a diplomatic note to the U.S. Department of State concerning the lawsuit.
  • In the diplomatic note, the Nigerian government stated that the defendants' actions were authorized official acts, attributable to the Government of Nigeria, and performed to defend Nigeria's unity and preserve internal security.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs (John Doe, et al.) sued sixteen Nigerian officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
  • The Nigerian government submitted a diplomatic note to the U.S. Department of State requesting a suggestion of immunity for the defendants.
  • Defendant Willie Obiano filed a motion to dismiss for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to foreign-official immunity.
  • The remaining defendants collectively filed a motion to dismiss on similar jurisdictional and immunity grounds.
  • The U.S. State Department did not file a suggestion of immunity or non-immunity with the court prior to its decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the common-law doctrine of foreign-official immunity shield foreign officials from suits under the Torture Victim Protection Act for acts of torture and extrajudicial killing when their government has ratified those acts as official?


Opinions:

Majority - United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Yes. The common-law doctrine of foreign-official immunity shields these officials from suit. The court found that the requisites for conduct-based immunity were met because the defendants were Nigerian officials acting in their official capacities, their actions were explicitly ratified as official by the Nigerian government, and exercising jurisdiction would effectively enforce a rule of law against the state of Nigeria. The court declined to recognize an exception for violations of jus cogens norms, following D.C. Circuit precedent which holds that such an exception would merge the jurisdictional immunity inquiry with the merits of the case and interfere with foreign relations. Furthermore, the court held that the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) does not abrogate this common-law immunity, as the statute addresses liability but is silent on jurisdiction and immunity, and abrogating a common-law doctrine requires a clear and direct statement from Congress. The court also held, as a separate and independent basis for dismissal, that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because their alleged actions occurred entirely in Nigeria, were directed at Nigerian citizens for political purposes within Nigeria, and were not purposefully directed at the United States, thus failing to satisfy the constitutional 'minimum contacts' requirement for due process.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the significant hurdles plaintiffs face when attempting to sue foreign officials in U.S. courts for human rights abuses committed abroad. It solidifies the D.C. Circuit's position that common-law foreign-official immunity is a robust defense that is not pierced by allegations of jus cogens violations, deferring heavily to the Executive Branch's foreign policy concerns. By holding that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not abrogate this immunity, the ruling substantially narrows the statute's practical application, limiting its reach primarily to 'rogue' officials whose actions are disavowed by their home governments, thereby protecting officials who commit atrocities under the shield of state-ratified policy.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Doe v. Buratai (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"