African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights OUi
Collective Responsibility
Communication 801/21
Afekuru Animu Risas· mitai
(Represented by the,
tl te for
Human Rights and "._--_
Af ic
n
The
Adcpted by the:
..'
African Commission JrinUlfiiin
PeiJples' Rights
During the sri' Ordina1l1&ssion
held Virtually from 24 July to 2 August 2024
if,
'.'
The African Commission
on Human and Peoples' Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 0504
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https;/achpr.au.intlO (, a
In Qg-Cf1 <fthe
c\frican
Union
s
ec/pskh/AIO
p.."' .... r-11
"~'"
~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Communication 801/2021: Afekuru Animu Risasi Amitai
(Represented by the Institute for Human Rights and
Development in Africa) v. The Republic of South Sudan
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Hum.an,c
,eoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a complaint on 26 October 2Q~\( from fekuru Animu Risasi
Amitai (represented by the Institute for Human' ~ghts and Development in
Africa) (the Complainant) against the Repu ic of South S¥d~,!(th~"Respondent
.~~~""';1;!1:,;;
Stt)
ae .
2. The Complainant submits that she is ,0yth Su ,;, ese natiQn,al,born in South
Sudan on 27 August 1983. Her parents w'ir~~b?th$,QuthSudanese by birth. They
both hailed from Morobo County, which is naw}~rown as Central Equatoria State,
in the Republic of South Sudan,
.
3. A f~w months after the Cqmplainant was born, w
her family fled the country to' anda.
L
,~
"tokeout in then Sudan, and
..,
4. On 25 NovembeI)JJ9957theCo
'·'l~!nant'sfathetl
Mr. Taban Risasi Amitai Yango
i~~:?
'_"',:,
, ',":,&
. *'
died at Mulag,~ National Hospit~hdn Kampala, Uganda and the Ugandan
authorities issd~d his death certificate indicating that he was a Sudanese national.
5. Between 2005 ,and 2006, followittg the signing of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement betvV(~n,,~e Governmint of Sudan and Sudan's People's Liberation
Moyetnent (SPLM)W,. Compla~~t traced her origins and moved back to South
Sudan,' where she liv :~vet ~in.ce.At the time, she was using temporary travel
documents is,sued by the S6tilliern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission,
which allowed ~pe9plt of Southern Sudan origin to travel back home.
k,
.
; ;-';,"<
6. The Complainant obtained a Ugandan passport on 4 May 2009. But in 2012,
following South Sudan's attainment of independence in 2011, the Complainant, on
the advice of her lawyers decided to return her Ugandan passport to the Ministry
of Internal A~tairs,Department of Citizenship, Passport Control and Immigration
Department of the Republic of Uganda in March 2012, before its expiry, thereby
renouncing her Ugandan citizenship, with the assistance of her lawyer Bako
Madinah who returned the passport and made the required statutory declaration.
7. After returning the Ugandan passport, she started the process of applying for a
South Sudanese nationality certificate (by birth) in July 2012by obtaining required
supporting documents, such as recommendation letters ~.
UIJ~
authorities/leaders of her place of origin and submitted her apB: ati~E.f(Y'th~o "-;.
,1(j0
,
The African Commission on Humanlf@d P tPI~~&<'"':
'RRights , .~
31 BIJllo Annex Layout, Komoo North DistrA"t?,Wes Coa t 8'e,Sion \ -.
Phone: (220) 230 436, ~xg
20) 4 f 05,...04 I 0 C;;
Email: au-b
Q f'
a-tfnt~;~l
S
s:/ac~6a.1'l
~x,
<fJ
An Organ of the
African
Union
<j~~~
hl.
ec/pskh/AIO
°
~
(.
~.
;Y"l'_·RIC/l.\~
!~
°i11ME ET oE.S
.s:
~~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Directorate of Nationality, Passport and Immigration (DNPI) of the Republic of
South Sudan in February 2014. Her uncle, Mr. Ofeni Ngota Amitai, a South
Sudanese by birth and a resident of [uba witnessed her application.
8. Pursuant to that application, the Complainant was lawfully granted South
Sudanese nationality through Nationality Certificate of Personal Number FB
300003258444 and subsequently obtained a South Sudanese Passport of Number:
R00126644, which ran out of pages and she applied for another one that was issued
with Passport Number: R00264822. All the documents
e issued by the DNPI of
the Republic of South Sudan.
South Sudanese
1 of the Laws of
9.
11. After her removal from that position, the Complainant submits that the
Directorate of <~ationality, Passport aD;"~I:,Lnynigration
(DNPI) of the Republic of
South Sudan d~dded to revoke her nationality and confiscated her nationality
certificate and p'&~~portin 2018, with nlreasons disclosed to her, despite several
re ests in that l·~gfU;? She was,Plater informed orally that the basis of her
citi
revocation ~d confiscation
of her documents was that she was an alien
\-l;:~<f/'
(Uga'
.1,1.
,,;;;?
12. The COIl}plaina :S\lbmi.tsthat the revocation of her nationality and confiscation
of her docqments is nol compliant with and is in violation of Section 15 of the
Nationalit).i; Act 2011, which provides for the conditions under which citizenship
may be revok,ed. In terms of that provision, the revocation of citizenship has to be
made by thJf~l~sident on the recommendation of the minister of interior, after
having prove'a that the South Sudanese national has made a voluntary declaration
renouncing her South Sudanese nationality or on the basis that the South Sudanese
national has enlisted to serve or continues in the service of a foreign enemy country
in violation of any provision of any applicable law of South Sudan.
13. In June 2018, the Complainant requested the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
South Sudan to inform and advise the Directorate of Nationality, Pass 0 ~~
Immigration (DNPI) about her intention to sue if her nationality d~~~[~~1te>:(
not returned. The Ministry of Justice issued that notice on 27 June~.~,~mio:1 _~~~'ts '-\
The African Commission on Human; d Pe pl~lJ.\Ri~hts
31 Btiilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Dlstr~~'~Wes Co~t ~e5Jion
Phone: (220) 230 436~ i'£al0( 20) 4'4'10504
Email: au-ba<.)\:Ila·ca-Ul.1.ioH~r
All Oigdnoltl,a
African (~~
Union ~,!I
fi .""' .Ia~~tL'
ec/pskh/
AIO
~
(-:v
'110
......
':! 7]\
'~~.
:5 c;;;
6~
:
Y If
~<v'?R
A'RICP.\I"
w~EE10t
"........,;;;;q-~
<;...:5
S\'
~
'/.'
~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Directorate
Nationality,
Human Rights our
Collective
of Civil Litigation and
Passport and Immigration
Legal Opinion, but the
(DNPI) did not respond.
Responsibility
Directorate
of
14. On 17 March 2019, the Complainant filed a civil suit against the DNPI at the High
Court in Juba. The summons to file a defence were served upon the DNPI, but the
DNPI did not respond. The Complainant submits that she has vigilantly followed
up on the case before the High Court, but the High Court never set the matter
down for hearing, and has not showed effort to hear her case.
15. The Complainant further submits that on 10 May 2'
was appointed as a
Member of Parliament
in the Revitalized Tr~~l ona
tftional Legislative
Assembly by the President of the Republic of Sdu}Q. Sudan] but she was later
dismissed on 22 May 2021 on the ground that she is not South Sudanese.
16. The Complainant
submits that she is .
pl~ie'6.:~"~ithf';hti source of
livelihood due to her statelessness,
unable.
travel'~out of South Sudan
without a passport for a surgery she rl~e sto,under
. She furfher narrates several
incidents of arrest, detention without trial fliii"d torture by the National Security
Service (NSS) and the South Sud "
ationa
ice Service (SSNPS), working
together with the DNPI, dJl€ to her p,
. Sudan with no nationality
documents.
IA¥':';g~;·,,.
:~><i , .,
'
A;:FRICAN' CHAR?:,ER ON HU~~N
ARTICLES OF THE
ALLEGED TO HAVIfBEEN
VIOLATED~;:'
AND PEOPLES'
RIGHTS
1
;{'1t
17. The provision ',''of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African
Charter) allege
lave been viol~ted by the Respondent State are Articles 1; 5; 7
(1), 12, 13, and 1
reof,
:[l
PRAYER
"._.,
l/~':lv.· ~
18. The Corrl;Rla~nan't, th~l~;tpre, prays that:
~>,._
~'i(:>'
1.
The Commission declares that the Respondent State has violated the rights
of the Complainant under Articles 1, 5, 7 (1), 12, 13 and 15 of the African
Charter;
ii.
The Commission recommends that the Respondent State restores all rights
of the Complainant, including her South Sudanese nationality certificate
and national passport;
iii.
All 0<9ao of U,e
African ~.~'~,
Union
i'
ec/pskh/AIO
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
iv.
The Commission recommends that the Respondent State compensates the
Complainant in the sum of USD 600 000 (six hundred thousand united
states dollars) for all general and pecuniary losses, including loss of earning
power, moral and psychological damages, mental suffering etc;
v.
The Commission recommends that the Respondent State carries out
training exercise on the right to nationality and statelessness for its security
agencies, especially the DNPI, SSNPS, and the Immigration and Passport
Department within the Ministry of Interior.
VI.
Any other recommendations
make in the circumstances.
that the Africaf Co
.,
THE PROCEDURE
19. The Secretariat received the complaint
receipt on 12 September 2022.
20. Through
a letter dated 29 August,:,¥g22, the's
representation. from. Sho,~~i,llAdvocaf~~:I;:to~e
Development m Afnca (IPl ' ,A), workmg·WIth Co
legal practitioner in Kampal'
U ganda.,t
;;
~Af
>:<'f,- i ~_t
plainant changed her legal
te for Human Rights and
}N1adinah Bako, a private
'f,
21. Through a Note" Verbale dated 13 June 2023, the Secretariat notified the
Respondent State about this Communication and communicated the decision of
the Commissioi to be seized of this ma!t;t:in terms of Rule 115 (5) of the Rules of
Procedure of til, ommission 2020~(RO:ijJl2020).
22. Through a lette
ted 13 June 023, the Secretariat communicated to the
CO~R1lainant the d ,.•...
ien of the . mmission to be seized of this matter in terms
of RUl~:,115(5) of the'Rb ,
cedure of the Commission 2020, and requested
the C6mplainantJo submit arguments and evidence on admissibility and merits,
within 60 days i:(§"perRule 116 (1) of the ROP 2020.
23. The Complainant submitted her observations on admissibility and merits on 11
September 2023, and the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the same on 13
September 2023.
::t>
24. By Note Verbale dated 13 September 2023, the Commission transmitted the
Complainant's observations on admissibility and merits to the Respondent State
and requested the Respondent State to submit the same within 60 days in terms of
Rule 116(2) of the ROP 2020.
25. The Secretariat received no feedback from the Respondent State.
26. In terms of Rule 118 (2) of the ROP 2020, where no submissions o~~jJ1~\~
have been received from the Respondent State within the tirnJ!4'~ij~lffXetl~rttl~.
'/
0-<>'\
,_sc::::-"'
('
I'"
~, ~
\I~
The African Commission on HuruJa~ an peoPll(~~, ig ts 11·
31 BijHo Annex L,yM Kornbo North Oi~~ict"],"
~o,"
egi o~ ~ Jt
An Organ of the
Phone: (220) 230 1~~1 ~
African ~;.,,,,,
Union'
,"_"
.
: (220)'-4 1 05 '4~
~
Email: alJ\6.an~(jJ.afriooLuh.fon.tri(.)
ec/pskh/AIO
'''/,
,~oq'-<'_'I'/
I'~...
,,--
'\t4'f.:,,--""\N~
<, c.,
~"r
ET DfS
...
'-tt-_~_..,
1
"> I)
~ttP~fe"ihw..aU<iFttl~~1:a
..41
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Commission
before it.
Human Rights our
Collectrve Responsibility
shall proceed to adopt a decision by default based on the information
with
the
30. The Complainant further submits that the Co
, ication complies with Article
56 (4) of the African Charter, as it is':,lJ.0tbased exclusively on news disseminated
through the m:a$S
media. Rather, it is.~Rrimarily based on the statement of the
.",4:
Complainant, arl9 other pieces of docuI1i~fitary evidence submitted .
,v,,.
• 1
..",)$
Y
0..'c
31. With regard to' ~ icle 56 (5) o(~the' African Charter on the requirement
of
ex
tion of loca "medies,
if '?~1.y,unless it is obvious that this procedure is
_~t3, 01.,,1-1,
undf ~,' _,~:r~~
l;olonged,
the Complawant
argues that she does not need to exhaust local
.. :"U:
_,
"-\{
remedies 'Bee~u~~they are unduly prolonged, unavailable or ineffective. In this
regard/the
Complainant submits that she filed a case before the High Court in
Juba on 17 M~uch 2019, but that case has not been heard since then, despite her
actively following-up on the matter. She contends that there is no realistic prospect
that the case, will be heard. In that argument, the Complainant relies upon the
jurisprudenct~t
the Commission in Communication 317/06 Nubian Community in
Kenya v. KenyTz>in which a case had been pending before the High Court of Kenya
for four years without a panel set up to hear it, and in such circumstances the
Commission held that such delay implied that local remedies were not available
or effective. In support of the same argument, the Complainant also advances the
jurisprudence of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of
the Child (ACERWC) in Communication 002/2009 IHRDA and A~or ·~be~alf,.!!f
[t.
o\~HU"'AIv
(O'~
,'/,,~
.':J"
.,Il
(,,'Ii
1
Communication
- 317/06 Nubian Community in Kenya v. Kenya.
'"
~CR
ET
AIi'/,,!
• ,'"
"1'\1 ,~,
(;
r:
.~~.
,¢"(C.,
0,
'a ~'F "\
on tluril!a}l an . Peo;p!e:s: ~i9h~S"i
,.1
'~(1'\\
U) )"
The African Commission
;t.: J"
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North D\~t€.ict$.VxestCMSI"Regi ~
~
Phone: (220) 230 4,3€i,Q F'~X'~22tl.)J4l4AO~ ,$ ;;:/,
Email: au:'banil.}t~afJ:ica-uniorl.or.g ;}'
An Organ of Ule
African
Union
--
\~P,S:/**"P~\lO<O~'"
ec/pskh/AIO
'. "
-'1"
.
-.'E FT DEC \
,( \~
~/
~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Children of Nubian Descent) v. Kenya in which the Complainants
engaged the
judicial system of the Respondent State but were not successful in getting the case
heard on merits, and the ACERWC in such circumstances found that the local
remedies were not available.
32. The Complainant
argues that the submission of a Communication
within a
reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies in terms of Article 5 (6) of the
African Charter is not applicable to the present matter where local remedies have
been unduly prolonged by the Respondent State or otheJ;""ise unavailable, and in
this regard relies upon the jurisprudence of the A~J:1'IHN<;~
'itl Communication No:
0019/Com/OOl/2022,2 where it was held that in c~ "'(V here '~~leis an exemption
to exhaust local remedies, the rule to submit
'ComrrUmication
within a
reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies do'
ot,apply\
-<,'L~ ~t~ >->~~~~{£{B~~
c
'"
'iQ ,,-'
,
33. Alternatively,
the Complainant
argues' that tne Communication
has been
submitted within a reasonable time mt~";msof ArdcYe 56 (6) of the African Charter,
as the Complainant waited for over four ye·.'
or.fl;lercase to be"~eard in the local
cou~ts ,:ithout success, and therefC?~~k?rougn, 'f case to the C6m~ission on the
realization of the lack of prospects ilia' . e case
local court WIll be heard.
>\t"
34. The Complainant submi;t$, tha,t the Co~~ication
(7) of the African Charter, as,'it hasnot been settle
dispute settlementmechanism.
'
t
'om plied with Article 56
'y any other international
35. In light of the submissions above, th~ Complainant prays that the Commission
declares this Coipmunication admissib~~~,~it has satisfied all the requirements for
admissibility i i" , ticle 56 of the AVican::,fiarter.
11
•
itt
4,
t
:t~;
i~~
NDENW STATE ON ADMISSIBILITY
36, Through a" jNQte Verbale
ated 13 [une 2023, the Secretariat notified the
Respondent State about this Communication
against it and the decision of the
Commission to be seized of this matter in terms of Rule 115 (5) of the ROP 2020.
Further, through Note Verbale dated 13 September 2023, the Commission
transmitted the Complainant's
observations on admissibility and merits to the
Respondent ~Fate and requested the Respondent State to submit the same within
60 days in terms of Rule 116(2) of the ROP 2020. The Respondent State did not
respond to the two Notes Verbales.
37. In the absence of submissions on admissibility from the Respondent State, the
Commission will proceed in terms of Rule 118 (2) of the ROP 2020, which states
An Orga" of Ill.
African .~"\
Union \ .
ec/pskh/AIO
'~"'":~AC H P R
"- African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
that where no submissions
on admissibility
have been received from the
Respondent State within the time-limit fixed, the Commission shall proceed to
adopt a decision by default based on the information before it.
38. Therefore, based on Rule 118 (2) of the ROP 2022 and established practices.> the
Commission proceeds to make its analysis on admissibility without submissions
from the Respondent State.
THE COMMISSION'S
ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY
39. A Communication
submitted in terms of Article 55 of the African Charter must
satisfy seven requirements of Article 56 thereof to be declared admissible. The
conditions outlined in Article 56 of the African Charter are cumulative and should
all be adequately fulfilled for a communication submitted in terms of Article 55
thereof to be admissible. Consequently, .non-fulfillment of anyone
of those
conditions willrender a Communication
:in~dmtssible.4 The Commission now
considers the submissions of the Complainant.injij
htof those seven requirements.
'~:'"
,
Article 56(1)
40. The requirement
under this provision is that "Communications
relating to Human
and Peoples' Rights ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they
indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity ... " The requirement
here is that coinplainants
or authors of complaints proffer their identity" and
contact
details" to enable the Commission
to adequately
process
the
communication
through assurances of continued interest in the matter.' The
Communication
has been submitted on behalf of Afekuru Animu Risasi Amitai,
who was initially being represented by ShoeBill Advocates, and subsequently
changed her, aJegal representation
to the Institute for Human Rights and
Development ~~tr.l~fl(IHRDA), working together with Counsel Madinah Bako,
. ':~.
;"'''Jr-'~
I/:,ti!.,.
a private, lE!l~al piac~tioner
in Kampala, Uganda, who have all adequately
identified themselves;'and have all submitted their contact details as required for
the purposes of processing this Communication.
Therefore, the Commission is
11<
! .•~
,
292/04 - Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Esmaila Connateh
and 13 others) v Angola (2008) para 34; Communication 155/96 (2001) Social and Economic Rights Action Center
and Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria; Communication 325/06 (2006) World Organisation Against
Torture and anor v Democratic Republic of Congo para 30.
3 Communication
-.~
304/2005 - FIDH & Others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR para 38
308/05: Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 71.
, ;..-",..
\\U~
6 Communication
70/92_9: Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba v Guinea, 7 October;1~9~<P"l'arqi\li;~tyo~
7 Communication
277/2003 - Spilg and Mack & DITSHWANELO (on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bf{ihata- KeberJi')~
Botswana, 12 October 2013, para 97.
4
Communication
5 Communication
f2/
',.
\
c~~\
u
10
) c:" ~~
The African Cornrnission.on Humanfaf}d Pe plei( RJ~l1ts
U
5'
All Organ of ttle
African~(~1
Unlon\.iltii"
ec/pskh/AIO
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District'YV'¥it Coast R~Qion
z;:
Phone: (220) 230 4361 f;ax: f~~ 441'-o5t~' }
Email: aU-banitJ!@aftlca"UOiQLl'0rg~~v«,'?
https.tacilpr,:,atil;ntftJ.o-"O "",:p.'
" fa,~'1~.I·rf1 0\:·-1
c 'I""
.;;--
~
\
<
t
f
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights OUf
Collective Responsibility
satisfied that the Communication has complied with Article 56(1) of the African
Charter.
Article 56 (2)
41. Article 56(2) of the African Charter provides that "Communications ... received by
the Commission shall be considered if they are compatible with the Charter of the
Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter."
42. In relation with this requirement, the Commission
1
eted it as including
compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the A ,~an Union or the Charter, and
'i1r; •
..
also compliance with four (4)aspects of its competence, namely; competence ratione
personae, materiae, temporis and loci".
43. Concerning compatibility with the Consftutive'lX~;~"of th 'iJ&?; If'canUmon and or
the Charter, the Commission notes that in this case.the Complait,\l~t requests the
protection of his human rights, i.e., her rights under Articles 1, 'Sf,g; 12, 13 and 15
of the African Charter. It turns'o
at one of ' objectives of the Constitutive
Act of the African Union, B;l:ovided
. Article.
) thereof, is the protection of
." nothing
dainant's submissions and
African Union Constitutive Act or
44. Regarding the ;~our (4) aspects 0, ....·\lisdiction,
e Commission notes that the
Communication was introduced ag~t
a State Party to the African Charter
(competence ratione personae); alleges the Violation of rights provided for in the
African Charter, in this case the violation of Articles 1, 5, 7, 12, 13 and 15 of the
Aq;~~anCharter '(29~petence rati01~'emateriae); the Complaint relates to facts that
occtrfred in 2018 and the, Respondent State became a party to the African Charter
on 23 Oetobex}013 and, pursuant to Article 65 of the African Charter, IS effectively
boundlgs ()f{2.-3iJ ' uary 2014 (competence ratione temporis); and the violation was
committed ir~p'.
. of the Respondent State (competence ratione loci). Thus,
the comrl:ij'!§Jioncon " es that all four (4) aspects of its competence are fulfilled.
Consequeritly, the condition of admissibility under Article 56 (2) of the African
Charter has been
fulfilled.
:)A:)f ,
~ , ,',
Article 56 (3)
"',
- ':: _'
-
-<"
'.\.
•
••
<,
45. The rule under this provision is that "Communications ... received by the
Commission shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging or insulting
language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the
Organization of African Unity [AU]". The Commission has previously fom~~,
"in determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting
'4~
~rt~Mtij~ "'<'
fi .<:>" <:,'\.c
'/"1,-
...~
0,
(- \
: -:
8
o
.~ '\
Communication 467/14 -Ahmed Ismael and 528 others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt (2015) AS~;PRp~a. ~~'8.,~,
',j
The African Commission on Human a.nCi!!P~ les' Ri9tns
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Dlstnct,'WJ;lSf;Csast ~egjbf'l
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fa'X:-(22~. 1 050
II.;!
Art Organ of U,e
('1
A~~~~~
'"
Email: aU-bah~!~~~~~:,0~i:
ec/pskh/ AIO
~
"~ ~:=--::.::.:~
oJ
7)
0
Gi'
~;n:r:
,? (;1
",<:i
~~"0~v~'?
.. '4'
~
•
f~~~'\':
AC
M
,PR
Q
, '~
'(WUl)"..
'Afncan Commissionon
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, the Commission has to satisfy itself
whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally
violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and
whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any
reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the
administration of justice."? On a perusal and analysis of submissions in the present
Communication, the Commission finds that no disparaging language has been
used and thus it complies with the provisions of Article 56 (3) of the African
Charter.
Article 56 (4)
46. Article 56(4) of the African Charter provides _tl{~t;"Communications relating to
human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be co,:t;\sidered:;~:~hey
are not based exclusively
on news disseminated through the mass m~g~a". T§~'Commission has interpreted
this provision to require Complainants t6'tr~~~ .ft their Communications with
evidence.'? This Communication is, based '0'
e signed statements of the
Complainant to which different forms ofevidenc
ve been annexed, but not on
news disseminated through mass media; Therefore,.,. he Commission is satisfied
that the Communication has complied with Article 5~(4) of the African Charter.
Article 56(~)
47. The African Charter states in Article 56 (5) thereof that "Communications relating
to human and; Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they are sent after
exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly
prolonged." This rule is based onthe premise that a Respondent State must first
have an oPP()f.Rtunityto redress, by its own means and within the framework of its
own d()mesti~ egal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the
individu~l.l1)l
J q~rnission requires exhaustion of local remedies where they
are 'available, effective and sufficient to redress the alleged violation.'12 An
available remedy is one where' the petitioner can pursue it without impediment' .13
An effective remedy will be one that 'offers a prospect of success.T'A remedy will
be sufficient:if it is capable of redressing the complaint.'15
,:
9 Communication
12 Communication
13 Communication
14 Communication
15 Communication
,()~)
284/03, 3 April 2009, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe
v Republic of Zimbabwe para 91.
10 Communication
147/95-149/96:
11 Communication
'>
Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, para 25 and 26.
";;:":1~'
322/2006 - Tsatsu Tsikata v. Republic of Ghana, para 51, para 34.
.: '" otl f'LJ
147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, para 3~.\\· C\'\: 1. 1~I.Il,.,.'\lO.o",~
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic 0/ Kenya, 3'ci)M~~.?0167'I3J55'O~ ~
147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, pa@31.
"
~ '~
147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, p~fa 31.
~(:l ..' "f
'.!S ~
I,r
All Organ of the
AfriGan(~)
Unlon\.<Il~'
\...,;-;.-.J
o
,i!?::I;
The African Commission on Hill:f,lal)) ~pe9Plft
Ri BIsZi fI
3'1 Bljdo Annex Layout, Kombo North IDCl:itrIG>1..
es~eoastJie@"onf'l
Phone: (220) 230'4~61 '1"1 : 2a}4'4\)<6"5~A
Email: au~ban:ulf~ical.tihi.br.
"
11,
c '"
•
httpS:iliEhpr.13gjotll? (J D
ec/pskh/AIO
~
.... fP;
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibifity
48. The facts and evidence submitted by the Complainant
relevant to this
admissibility requirement shows that after the revocation of her South Sudanese
nationality and confiscation of her nationality certificate and passport, she
indicated her intention to sue to the Ministry of Justice, Directorate of Civil
Litigation and Legal Opinion, if her nationality documents are not returned to her
by the DNPI. In a letter dated 27 June 2018, a Senior Legal Counsel and then Acting
Advocate General in the Ministry of Justice, Directorate of Civil Litigation and
Legal Opinion wrote to the Director General of the Directorate of Nationality,
Passport and Immigration, co~unicating
the ComI'"aln~U~;~intention to ~ue ~e
DNPI. The same letter subnutted all documentssrelated
to the Complamant s
claim, and requested the DNPI to reply within tWo week~ (Annexure 9). The
Complainant submits that the DNPI did not respond-to-that fl0tic~ of intention to
sue.
.
"
'<:;'>
"
'
~
I,
49. The Complainant, acting through h~'
ntatives
en proceeded to
institute a civil suit dated 17 March 2019
NPI be or ;the Judiciary of
South Sudan, in the High Cou~t a~l.¥ba (Anf(~~;
10). The facts constituting her
case are similarly narrated in the su~ary
of fa'x, ection of this decision. In that
civil suit, as filed, the Complainant indicated that 'L spite repeated demands and
.,
-ii' k£)~)'
notice of intention to sue dated 27 June 2018, having 15~:engiven to the Defendant
[DNPI]_ the Defendanthas stub.bornly and' blatantly. refused and or neglected to
release the natio.qalitY'idocum~l;l Tof the plcir\". =[the Complainant] or sought
audience to res,QI\rethe matter an' Ee,rsists in t:1;1at
refusal, to the detriment of the
Plaintiff (the Cokplainant)."
-.>~,
J-:
50. The Complainant submitted that the summons to file a defence under that civil
suit was served upon the DNPI but the DNPI did not respond.
51. In ffiat,dvil suit, th~:!:Complainant prayed, amongst others, for judgment to be
entered'~kain~t the DJ~ndan!'(DNPI) for a declaration by the High Court, asking
the D~renaai'
v. surrender
the Plaintiff's nationality, documents to her, The
Compl£i~ant~)~,
.for an order restraining the Defendant from any future
disturbant~'obstruc
s or interference into the quite enjoyment of her rights,
and a confirmatory order that the Plaintiff is a South Sudanese and should benefit
from the basiS,rights enshrined in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of
South Sudan,;;a~ramended,
,
,~iC
52. In her submissions, the Complainant indicates that since she filed that civil suit
against the DNPI on 17 March 2019, the matter has not been set down for a hearing
despite her effort to follow up on the same, and the High Court did not show any
effort to hear her. She has submitted that there is no hope that the case will be
heard and that justice will prevaiL She further submits that the condu t of~he-,.....
A o~ I\UI.lI;N 1 '.
DNPI and the conduct of the High Court have rendered her helpless,..and
writthOcl-!f~'D,
/c,'?' s(.u
'r ~
any further legal recourse under the laws of South Sudan.
.~
~
~~
.$
~"r;;-"""
e
i(I' ,
',(I
'
nd
I! Z
\
The African Commission on Human''
Reoples~igffl'ts
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distrio 1¥J4$.t'Coas~~~~~
Phone: (220) 230 4361 FiB<:~2b.l4.f1 05
Email: au-ban''t)i~ af1jCa~0rr.'6(
All Organ of the
African ;" ,\,
Union
;
"
https:
ec/pskh/AIO
<('..."
(~.\.
'"'
JlI
J ~ (
1)'
5 /J,
7,<j'~1j
'
'"RI(,'.AIt<
¢nw.f!u,inuo
\,,~ :"IIE
"tr ."'~~';-;
J
y"" ,,-" /./
~"'/
(J ~k\)/7
rr DES .;::;.""
... ~~,;!d'
AC:HPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
53. Against that background and in such circumstances, the Complainant argues in
her submissions on admissibility that she does not need to exhaust local remedies
because they are unduly prolonged, unavailable or ineffective.
54. The submissions and evidence of the Complainant, as she argues, point towards
the issue of non-availability of local remedies. In this regard, the Commission
through its jurisprudence held that an available remedy is one where 'the
petitioner can pursue it without impediment.'16 The Commission has also
interpreted 'available' as '''readily obtainable", "
"; or "attainable,
reachable on call, on hand ready, present; ...
's service, at one's
command, at one's disposal, at one's beck and
ble remedy as
and
grant
tive and
unjustifiable
stituted
. proceedings against the
ba on ,F'1March 2019, but until 26
DNPI in the High Cq~;i'to:
.~ematter to Commission, the
October 2021 wh,~n'tne J=omp'
gard the Complainant indicates
Court did not se,iritdown for hea
,hearing her case, despite her vigilantly
ce filing it. It appea
"at no justifiable reasons have been
urt to the Complain t in the circumstances surrounding the
the case fqF hearing, despite the precarious situation in
s she all~'ges,without nationality documents due to the
56. In the present matter, "tJi
:',u
'Ji).
57. In thi;'ig t, ,", " 'ml'lllssion finds that failure by the Court to set the matter down
for hear~p,~ithin'a:'!:~)'1isonabletime, and lack of effort by the Court to hear the
Complain~~t' s case (,)TImerits with no justification, despite the Complainant
vigilantly f~nowing
up on the case constitutes an impediment in pursuing local
1W,
remedies. TIll~t~nduct of the Court in handling the Complainant's case presents
an obstacle tq¥theComplainant in pursuing and exhausting local remedies. In light
of these findings, it is safe to conclude that the Complainant could not pursue local
remedies without impediments, which renders local remedies unavailable to her
in the context of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. Therefore, the Commission
f"'"~'
e-,.. ~~
.4." o~\\lJ~:"\i'1
.
16 Communication
147/95-149/96:
'"
Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (The), 11 May 2000, para 3~;~9.E~mm'tinicaj:19·n
~17~o
i (
/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, 30 May 2016, para 55 .. ,;,
17 Communication
308/05: Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 12.
# U
t;
18 Communication
-e-,,"
"',.). ".tu
;<7\,o\~ .c,Hrl
445/13- Human Rights Council and Others v. Ethiopia, 19 May 2016
Z
<,,
III
~;3
(),
~-
0
'
'
\,.,,'.
.
-~
...
'.
\
L,'
I
,.oJ
! ~ G.
1'-
~I'
Huma,,:~~n\. OP~f,)S!lR1gt};tS?liJ'
The African Commission on
31 Bijlo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distr st. ~t
Phone: (220) 230 436
a~.
Email: 9_u-gan
An Organ Of the
African
Union
https:
ec/pskh/AIO
€~gfw
r_
-y,'
'~p
~MeJ\~&6'1,v~
h
enfl1;;_a.u.!Ji!tf.
h
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
finds that this Communication is in compliance with Article 56 (5) of the African
Charter for purposes of determining its admissibility.
Article 56(6)
58. Article 56(6)of the African Charter states that Communications relating to human
and peoples' rights ... shall be considered if they are submitted within a reasonable
period from the time local remedies are exhausted,. or from the date the
Commission is seized with the matter". The purpos~~Q£tll~~~Rrpvision
is to require
the complainant to 'be vigilant and to discourag:}~~diness":l~~,,~
¥ <'Ifill
!iNI
59. In previous matters, the Commission has gener~li)7,:,fqJll1d
tije submission of a
Communication within 6 months after ex
tion ()( locai4lWr~inedies.
to be a
reasonable period.P But the approach V1:ueter 'ning a "reasonable period" is on
a case by case analysis." In making stiel,~X~~
deter .' ation, the Commission will,
';S"""
amongst others, also take into account itS:"
0
ation to 'ptqtect human and
peoples' rights'.22 In cases w,her, there i
lay in the ,~~bmission of a
Communication, the complainant'
s to p
e reasons" which must be a
'compelling reason'24 or /i)., 'good an . .0mpelliI
ason' which requires the
African Commission to con~i~er the case Wi the inter
of 'fairness and justice' .25
,~,
"
,,~
60. The "reasonable periO'dfrom the time local remedies are exhausted" starts to run
from the 'date of exhaustion of local remedies'," or 'from the date that the last
"
available local t,emedy is exhausted bYt;thecomplainant' ;27or from the date of the
delivery of the::'udgment of the final,dpwestic court." If the remedies are not
:,
' :71:
~h
19 Communication
20 Cornrnunicatlon
~,:y,t.::A~k
.•;"
310/05: DarfW.i~~Jj~f and Document~tion Centre v Sudan, 25 November 2009, para 78.
308/05: Micha~rrY1aluru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 109.
.
1'..
~ ~'"
. :'c'
Communication 80&/'05- 1 March 20]j~;.~;~P'~(YJtM;~1
f(.:Muzerengwa and 110 Others (represented by Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights) y Zimbabwe.
. ," ·,_C
21
See also Commu~ication 278/2003 - Promoting Justice for Women and Children (PROJUSTNGO) vs. Democratic
Republic of Congo, 12 October 2013, para 76. Communication 340/07 - Nixon Nyikadzino (represented by
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum) v. Zimbabwe, 4 June 2014, paras 100 and 101Communication 351/2007Givemore Chari (represented by GabrielShumba) v Republic of Zimbabwe, 12 October 2013, para 83.
22 Communication
308/05: Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 108.
23 Communication
76.
333/06: 5puthern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania, 26 May 2010, para
.,
Communication 310/05: Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan, 25 November 2009, para 78.
Communication 375/09 - Priscilla Njeri Echaria (represented by Federation of Women Lawyers, Kenya and
International Center for the Protection of Human Rights) v. Kenya, 7 November 2011, para 60.
25 Communication
278/2003 - Promoting Justice for Women and Children (PROJUSTNGO) vs. Democratic Republic of
Congo, 12 October 2013, para 76. Communication 340/07 - Nixon Nyikadzino (represented by Zimbabwe Human
24
25
Rights NGO Forum) v. Zimbabwe,
4 June 2014, para 100. Communication
409/12 - Luke Munyandu
Tembani and
Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v Angola and Thirteen Others, 30 April 2014!/8~!:cfi,Qi4~
'"
27 Communication
322/2006 - Tsatsu Tsikata v. Republic of Ghana, para 51.
~\\ 0 cRETM"I'~;"'o,o,
~83~ommunication 333/06: Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzanito~frtv1*
!he African Commission
t. o
<'c.~~,
QlQ1"~
't
r
(';",
\
'c;1'\I''
on Humatjl ;:rd P ople I 'Ri.!i!,t~ts )'~
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Dlstnct'2W~s Coas 'Reglon
-::::;"
Phone: (220) 230 436~}~X~~
0) 44~J0~.
Email: .au-bah.Ui ~ ,§a"uniOn_G~«:?() c, l
http, . a_c~fVa!J..ifilWj~:O'd 0~N'v
Y'?J'I
All Orgall of ttle
African .(i'''''
Union \
ec/pskh/AIO
.. ~~
,
'0.
\,~.-/
.......
·'·';lE E1 Df.S
".J
• p..":..... ~!t
AC!HPR
/
African Commission on
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Rights
available, sufficient or effective, the lime will run from 'when the Complainant
immediately realizes' this." Similarly, where local remedies are unavailable or
prolonged, the time will run 'from the date of the Complainant's notice thereof'. 30
61. In a Communication of similar circumstances such as the present, the Nubian
Community in Kenya v The Republic of Kenyap for more than three years after
proceedings were instituted in the High Court of Kenya on behalf of the Nubian
community, no bench was constituted by the High Court to hear the case, and no
date was fixed for a substantive hearing of the case de . many attempts by the
Legal Counsel of the Applicants, when the Communt
as submitted to the
Commission. The Commission found that the Com.plainants re unable to utilize
local remedies mainly because of many procedural and administrative bottlenecks
put in their path. The Commission further fqU,!).dthat, afte more tll.anfour years,
there does not seem to be any realistic "Pi~'~~~ the C'
lainahts';;Q~g~being
heard, and concluded that local re~,eat~§:&.
are un ~ ilable ,the Complainants,
finding that the Communication is?admls~r\>lein COnformitywith Article 56 (5),
without deliberating and reach!n: concl~t
1\ the requirement to submit a
Communication "within a reas~na' '
62, In the present matter, as naf_1;ated
befor "
,
",
reinabo . he,Complainant
filed a civil
lli
suit against the DNPI before"'''t~the
Higll..Co tJ of South Sudan at [uba on 17March
.
2019, but the Court did not se "own the matter f r hearing on merits, and the
DNPI did not re;~pondto
summo
file a def . in that civil suit. In this regard
~
the Complainagt has submitted th
,e has been following up on the case but the
Court showed
effort in hearing her;6ise and no reasons have been provided for
failure to set the:~ase down for hearing,,:!whichthen prompted her to submit this
Communication to ~heCommission on 26 October 2021.
f·~·
"$ •. b-l
.''t''''''
. ·S~t·"'·
\r.
no
63. In lightpf the findingot.the Commission that domestic remedies are not available
to the:G:(:li~lplainant
due to impediments in having her case heard, the time taken
to sub~it'th~:~~on}munication in determining submission "within a reasonable
period'I"~~run~~¢fdM; time that the Complainant realizes or takes notice of the
unavaila~J!ify or
,; e prolongation of domestic remedies.P This is a
determination that cannot be made with mathematical precision, as in some cases,
there is usually po definite or specific point in time (date) that the Complainant
realizes or notices
that domestic remedies are unavailable, ineffective or
,H'
insufficient. That realization or noticing is often a gradual process, based on the
effort of the Complainant and unfolding developments as observed by the
29 Communication
386/10 - Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRESS)v. Sudan, 18 October 2013, para
71.
~#"!!'~
30 Communication
31
Communication
"~~
322/06: Tsatsu Tsikata v Ghana, 29 November 2006, para 37.
~
tiLl 1.1At, .~.
,','
f"
'C
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, para 33 _~'"s,,-cr..
J'lr
"""
32 See Communication
386/10 - Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by REDRESS)v. su~aa,""18 OGtober-',
2013, para 71. See also Communication
322/06: Tsatsu Tsikata v Ghana, 29 November 2006'l~a
37(
'r ' \" \.\
'J he African Commission on Humaht;Ylct.p~OPIc~S· Rights
31 BIJllo Annex Layout. Kombo North Distrit'\u.~s~Coa~\fi,~sion
Phone: (220) 230 4361 ~a)('~~-041
059,4
Email: au-banlul~afri!i'a-OfItQrrOf§t
AnAOrf9"~Oftl,e
ncan
Union
\
•
I
-li "
Ii ;;: t
'j "
«.-">
httP~~6t:!t15-~~~f\-t/ef'ii~\)~v
ec/pskh/ AIO
:;;:¢.,;~~,~~""'P
Human Rights OUf
Collective Responsibility
Complainant in her case. Therefore, the Commission can only rely upon its
discretion and liberty to determine whether a Communication was submitted
within a reasonable period, based on the unique circumstances of each case as
presented before it. This case is one of those.
64. In light of the facts as submitted, the reasonableness of the period within which
the Complainant submitted the Communication from the time she realized that
domestic remedies are unavailable has to be determined, taking into account the
fact that the civil suit was filed before the High Court, of South Sudan at Juba on
17 March 2019, with the hope that matter will be set gown for hearing, but that did
not happen despite the Complainant following up; until she realized that there is
no prospect of her case being heard, prompting her to submit this Communication
to the Commission on 26 October 2021. The period between filing the case at the
High Court of South Sudan and filing a Communication -at the Commission is
almost three (3) years, similar to the Nubian CommunJty in Kenya v The Republic of
Kenya33 in which the Communication was,:submitted to the' Commission, after
having been pending before the High Court'ofKeriya for more than three (3)years
without hearing, and was found aomissible. In)ight of such circumstances, the
Commission finds that the,Communic~~()? was S1;t.pIllitted"within a reasonable
period", and complies with Article 56 (6) of the African Charter.
"'1:'
;~
p
,"
Article 56(7)
65. The final requirement
for admissibility is that "Communications relating to
human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they: do not deal with cases
which have been settled by these states involved in accordance with the principles
of ~~ Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the 25 Organisation of
African
,llnity or the provisions of the present Charter." In Sudan Human Rights
,,1
'" .~,
Commissio. 'and Another v Sudan, the Commission held that a matter shall be
consid~t:,ed
. ~tan international adjudicatory body with a human rights
mandatelor J '. IS Ict1on'has made a decision on it and rendered the complaints res
judicata.34lnpthe presentmatter. the Complainant submitted that the matter has not
been dealt 'with by any other international dispute settlement mechanism and
there is no e'v~gence indicating that the matter has been considered by any other
international .adjudicatory body. Therefore, the Commission finds that the
Communication has complied with Article 56(7) of the African Charter.
66. Based on the analysis
on admissibility, the Commission finds that the
Communication has complied with all the admissibility requirements of Article 56
of the African Charter.
,4' _,.
o~ I\UI.1A1~~
,i~/""O\\~cHfl AI?/4;'vo ,~\
~""
....:;:::.
'i:
33 Communication
34 Communication
317 / 2006 - The Nubian Cammunity in Kenya v The Republic
279/03-296/05 27 May 2009, para 103,
at Kenya, p~'a 33.
j
.;
'"
0',
-c ...
(f
1-fC!?,;'\~
~ _.~)
11 \
~
un"
a;r.
~,)
~ I
(;if}
The African Commission on Hurri~~
Peo~~!iJtRig ~~
31 Bljllo Annex Layout, Kombo North Dis,trfct, '<Ys!3 Coast f)_e j9n
Phone: (220) 230 436\ Fax~<.V?30)"'ZI'2I1,--0-S~04<.."'#
Email: aU-b·i:jhi61@afridld~LI.A·iQ9-;(9fg~
...':-"l{1" FI Qt'
,
An Organ of the
African
(~'-'
'~'
·
l\ -,
ruon
U
~
U
httPs:/ac,'PC';:l.UJOtlOOD
~.fi~
ec/pskh/AIO
IJ
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
67. The Communication is declared admissible.
MERITS
Summary of the Parties' Submissions
Complainant's submission on the merits
68. The Complainant argues that the right to nationalitysis
not
ex licitly contained in
the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Righ~, but th
" isprudence of the
Commission established that a claim to nationality ;()!,~itizen~~ipas a legal status
is protected under Article 5 of the African Cltarter,35as expressed through its
~e~isions in communi~ations36 and .:",e>~(~'f.ution~:J~
an? also" r~lies -up~n ~e
jurisprudence of the African Court, w}tisfi~oundffia~arbitrary denial of a person s
right to nationality is incompatible w'ith lli~. ht t~<tdignity.38
.
,~",,~;
,
69. Relying upon Article 5 of the 'l\f~iEan Ch <!~~(randthe jurisprudence of the
Commissio~ an~ the Afric~p Courb!~~;i;thighligIf~~li~\Ilkthe
Complainant submi.tted
that her nationality documents that she;~l~J~ally
ob~~g. 'Yiererevoked and seized
by the Respondent State Wl~h;,no cle.~tJi'BAs}s
adduce~~~~ffectivelyrendering her
stateless, and argu~t, that th~ conduct of tne Respondent States amounts to
arbitrary deprivation of nationality, which is a violation of her right to dignity and
right to reco
of her legal status,under Article 5 of the African Charter.
70. The
35
t alleges that the Respondent State has violated her right to
t within the
and her right to leave the country and
Article 5 of'~p~"African
Cha
inherent in a hUman ,being and to
man particularly sla'~ery", slave trade, to
prohibited."
"
• "
individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity
~~~W;ilj~~~,T
legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of
inhuman or degrading punishment
and treatment
shall be
Communication 317/2006 - The Nuqian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, paragraph 140, states that
"The Commission agrees with the position espoused above, namely that nationality is intricately linked to an
individual's juridical personality and that denial of access to identity documents which entitles an individual to enjoy
rights associated with dtJzenship violates an individual's right to the recognition of his juridical personality. The
Commission considers that-a {:Iaim to citizenship or nationality as a legal status is protected under Article 5 of the
Charter. The present Cornrpunication will therefore be approached from that standpoint."
37 Resolution on the Right to Nationality
- ACHPR/Res.234(LlII)2013, "calls upon African States to observe minimum
procedural standards so that decisions concerning the recognition, acquisition, deprivation or change of nationality
do not contain any elements of arbitrariness, and are subject to review by an impartial tribunal in accordance with
their obligations under Article 7 of the African Charter."
38 Application 013/2015 - Robert J.Penessis vs United Republic of Tanzania, para 88 reads "The Court further notes
that a person's arbitrary denial of his/her right to nationality is incompatible with the right to human dignity,
reason for which international human instruments, including the Charter, provide that "Everyone shall have the
right to have his legal status recognized everywhere" (Article 5 of the Charter and Article 6 of the U'pI;lRt![1:d~,' " ~
international law (UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)J requires States to tak~;gIPQ,~ceS:sarY/
•«r "o~."
36
measures to avoid situations of statelessness.
,'I e
"...-
-
,
v"(-«'~\
.aha
The African Commission on Human
Pe{ple${Ri9t:lts
31 Bijlo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distridt, ~West~oas~ ~egjl!)n
Phone: (220) 230 4361;Nx:~n~0) 44"10504
Email: au-bani~j@afr1ca-uni0n~&rg
AnOrganoftlle
African
Union
V>,
~
,f '"
htt~~:/acY;I\~/~tlUI~W <;>,,-"() '<,0,
ec/pskh/AIO
'\. I;
"l>f.lIC,\\t<"-
0,..
'.~s~
:i:'"
\'~~
......
.
~
1;:;
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
return as provided for in terms of Article 12 of the African Charter, particularly
Article 12 (1) and 12 (2).39 In that regard, she submits that the confiscation and
revocation of her identity document (nationality certificate) and her travel
document (national passport) by the DNPI in an arbitrary manner has put her in
a position in which she is unable to travel in seeking medical services outside
South Sudan, and has been arrested and detained several times for being in the
country" illegally".
71. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated her right
to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating her fundamental
rights as recognized and guaranteed
by conventions, laws, regulations and
customs in force, as provided for in terms of Article 7 (1) (a) and further alleges
violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or
tribunal as provided for in Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter.w In that regard,
the Complainant submitted that for more than 5 years after her passport and other
identity documents were revoked and cor(fiscated~~~he has not been charged in a
court of law, and the case she has Jged at the;I-;f,tgf{t:ourt in [ubahas also not been
heard. Further, she submits that on:"oue occasion:of her arrest and detention, she
t,/
'\>:~,,>
was released on 2500 USD.?ail, but no C:,dIl(inalchar;gM have been brought against
her in court since then, and remains on'ba.il to date~:Y6ver 2 years at the time of
submission of her arguments 011:, admissibility .ill,1dmerits.
'f{~
,
' = :_f: ;_, :,-
72. The Complainant is alleging that the Respondent State has violated her right to
participate freely in the government of her country as guaranteed by Article 13 (1)
of the African Charter.e! In that regard, the Complainant argues that due to the
confiscation and revocation of her citizenship documents, she is unable to contest
elections for any official position in South Sudan, and will be unable to vote as she
has no citizenship documents .
.:i~~>j<.;;,';p p
,'.
Charter prQyldes inter alia that:
1. Every individual shall-have the rightto freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State
provided he abides by t~e law.
,~{,
2, Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This
right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order,
public health or morality.
40 Article 7 of the African Charter provides inter alia that:
1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:
(a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental
recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force;
rights as
(b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal;
(c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice;
(d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.
1'-U': -;~ .....
"""Iv .._~ ..
Ol~ ,
~o\~ ChllAI"1 '1....u~"
,,/
".;;\
_. '1,.
<"c."
41 Article
13 (1) provides that "every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the gover~ry,ienLf
either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law'
,
his cou~}
:1 i ~
\.
1
~
~I"\
<.I'
11J:U
I
~,J
The African Commission on Human\~)ncfcP oples"Rights
~
31 Sljdo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,rW~.si\:(oa§'lvR.e~ion' 2 ;;;'I
Phone: (220) 230 4361 F~x: tr~60}-44..1j25.d4",<)' //
Email: au-ban IuICCilafrit.a-UIiJ iQ!],.'bl-j[~vx.'?(/
'I'
,..0
https:/achpf,;a4·lrtl~~~J"D
\-
ec/pskh/AIO
I
-
..-.)
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights OUf
Collective Responsibility
73. The Complainant further alleges violation of her right of equal access to the public
service of her country, as provided for by Article 13 (2) of the African Charter.v In
that regard, the Complainant submits that due to the confiscation and revocation
of her citizenship documents, she has been unable to access the public service of
the Respondent State and had her employment in the public service withdrawn
on the basis that she is not a citizen.
74. The Complainant is also alleging violation of Article 15 of the African Charter.P
on the basis that due to the confiscation and
identity documents,
she is unable to secure employment. In substan
she submits
that she has lost every job she had because of the
and has to depend on her family and well
75. Lastly, the Complainant alleges violation
basis that it imposes an obligation
measures with effect of giving
Charter, and in that regard,
African Charter, en tails a
any finding of violation of
Article 1, and requests
The Respondent
76. In the absencejof submissions
proceed to conduct an analysis on
Complainant, i
onformity with.
submissions on
erits have
the . e-limit fixe'
Commission
1... f
.:"'11
. <l;1C Ql'e·lt.
'_:->,~~;~b~:,'}C;]
State, the Commission will
based on the submissions of the
(2), which provides that "where no
received from the respondent State within
shall proceed to adopt a decision by default
}>.,_- •
··t~nthe Merits
77. The facts as ~5f;ented by the Complainant indicate that on 10 February 2014, she
applied (Annexure A5) and subsequently
lawfully obtained South Sudanese
citizenship by birth through Section 8 of the Nationality Act, 2011, specifically in
terms of Section 8 (1) which allows her to be granted citizenship on the basis that
42
Article 13 (2) provides that "every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country,"
15 provides that "every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory c01l,ditions,
43 Article
and shall receive equal pay for equal work."
, ~\UMAii~
44 Communication
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic oj Kenya, pa~i3~~~~iI;,V(ff€!a'a'j;r, 0
"the Commission considers that if a State Party fails to respect, protect, promote or fulfil any;~.fthe fights'~
guaranteed in the Charter, this constitutes
·I§
~0\'
/" '-;'.\ \ ,u \:. ,
_!he African Commission on Hum~lJiand
eopl~!:;' f~lght~ ~ i'i
31 BIJiloAnnex Layout, Kornbo North Dlst[l_et,Ib~t Coast rJ-tx9IO) r.5 ;;;
Phone: (220) 230 43:6.1~fci'~('~OtzP41 O)..iJ4..r
,
Email: aU-bAnlul~tba"'lJ[,Ji0ntQ(-d' ct'
J
An Org-itn of fhe
African
Union
a violation of Article 1of African Charter."
...
,()¢~5:
,~
j
.il -
r>
"11>1
htlJ!)S)/SlP61pr:ll[i!lfIl'O
ec/pskh/AIO
(~~
~~IE~/
. ~ -';lW.~
"1,-'S'J-
R"
'I'
'I
';Ii'
ri:f,~\,'ACHPR
\~,
/~
"urn)',.
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
her parents were both born in South Sudan, and they belonged to an indigenous
ethnic community of South Sudan, as required in terms of that Section.
78.The Complainant was granted South Sudanese nationality through Nationality
Certificate of Personal Number FB 300003258444,issued on 14 February 2014
(Annexure A6) and subsequently obtained a South Sudanese Passport of Number:
R00126644,issued on 19 February 2014 (Annexure A7) which ran out of pages
before its expiry and she applied for another one that was issued on 8 September
2017 with Passport Number: R00264822(Annexure A8). All the documents were
issued by the Directorate of Nationality, Passport. and Immigration (DNPI) of
South Sudan.
79. The Complainant was appointed as a speech writer in the Office of the VicePresident, General Taban Deng Gai in Octo~eI:~,2016,which then led to online
complainants against her appointment, qu~sti9ning her South Sudanese,
nationality and alleging that she is Ugandan, whichtthen led to her removal from
that position in March 2018.
"it:-;
.;r,·
,
,pi'f
80. After her removal from that position, the DNP
.ded to revoke her nationality
and confiscated her nationality certificate and n "ki!",~l
passport in 2018,with no
reasons disclosed to her.. despite several :r~quests m?lth:atregard. She was later
informed orally that the revocation of her nationalItY and confiscation of her
documents is on the basis that she is an alien (Ugandan), but was never given an
opportunity to be heard.
81. Against that oackground, the Complainant argues that the conduct of the
Respondent State through DNPI is in violation of her right to nationality, which
although is not explicitly contained in the African Charter, is protected under
Article 5 of the African Charter on the basis that the jurisprudence of the
Commission has established that a claim to nationality or citizenship as a legal
status is protected under'A:rtic1e5 of the African Charter.
The Right to Nationality under the African Charter
82. Article 5 provides that" every individual shall have the right to the respect of the
dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All
forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade,
torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be
prohibited."
83. Although the right to nationality is not expressly provided for in the African
Charter as the Complainant correctly argues, the jurisprudence of the Commission
and the African Court has developed over the years to the effect that Article 5
guarantees the right to nationality/citizenship and prohibits arbitrary:d~~~~~a~'6~
,~> <;,'1
4.>-.0
\
lot
v
P.1l Organ of Ihe
Afriqanf(i~\
UnIOn~l"'.~ ec/pskh/AIO
.> ,-"~
('c~\
~
%~
The African Commission on Huma:;n~nd
opl'~st Rights \u
31 BiJilo Annex Layout, Kombo North DistrlG:!, 1f$1e. t Co),st Region .~ ~~
Phone: (220) 230 4361',Fa~: 20),M'\.Q..50
§ _,
Email: au-banlul@"Gl
ica-union,Q'Q<:>'<"
"',
nltps!lIttlip~:awnuor(~G>
(y"'" //
.:- /'r
1,(le{,ll."
<t.. ~
,"'." '·,1" FT D[~;~\~0
....
.
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Flights
Human Hights our
Collective Responsibility
of nationality, in violation of established national and international
demonstrated herein below.
standards, as
84. Through its Resolution on the Right to Nationality.f the Commission reaffirmed
that the right to nationality of every human person is a fundamental human right
implied within the provisions of Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights and essential to the enjoyment of other fundamental rights and
freedoms under the Charter."
/I
e Commission held
ical personality and
divid ual to enjoy
the recognition
. e-nship
"
eld in Penessis v Tanzaniaw that "a
o nationality is incompatible with the
t in jurisprudence as narrated above, the Commissions
t is alleging a violation of her right to nationality as
Charter through Article 5. The Commission will then
and determine whether the alleged conduct of the Respondent
State amouni
,,'a violation of the said provision through arbitrary deprivation of
nationality as alleged by the Complainant.
Resolution on the Right to Nationality - ACHPR/Res.234(LlII)2013, available at: .b.!!lllliachpr.au.int/en/adoptedresolutions/234-resolution-right-nationality-achprres2341iii2013
45
46
Communication
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, paragraph 1.40
"
:. ;:~
" flU,.,
Communication 318/06 - Open Society Justice Initiative v. Cote d'tvoire, paragraph 141.
( /)~. 0 " T'
48 Penessis v Tanzania (Application
No 0132015) 2019 AfCHPR 50 (28 November 2019), paragra~n):'88?{.c __
47
49
See Article 5 of the Charter and Article 6 of the UDHR.
50
UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961).
.
.
~! ~
::(: _'.
,
1
-r
•
\0"
"'(
"\ -~,
':
',c:
u~
The Afncan Commission on Humji~r@ Peop't-es"Rights , ::' I
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Disl!,i~1 ~e\~ Ca~'SnRtefJi9h$ 0f~
Phone: (220) 230 43f\\ Fa~.i2'20j 441 Oil9.~j ~I
Email: i3U-b~()i.uI®~h€a~~,-~
In.,·~
- \'< /~"J"
An Org{!!) of the
African
Union
.,1 (
...., ":>.,
v
Q"
')I:~'
ht!~~t/~"hbfE-'f:I1·iB~~t~#
ec/pskh/ AIO
,~
_
""""IiiI:!...".,~~~~,.f'
_.'t".·
if
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Was the revocation/deprivation of nationality arbitrary?
89. In an effort to set standards against arbitrary deprivation of nationality by
ascertaining the ambit of Article 5 of the African Charter, the Commission through
its Resolution on the Right to Nationality.v called upon African States to observe
minimum procedural standards so that decisions concerning the recognition,
acquisition, deprivation or change of nationality do not contain any elements of
arbitrariness, and are subject to review by an impartialtribunal in accordance with
their obligations under Article 7 of the African Charter."
/I
90. The Complainant argues that the revocation of her' nationality and confiscation of
her legally obtained documents by the Respondent State amounts to arbitrary
deprivation of nationality because it was done. with no, clear basis adduced,
effectively rendering her stateless, in violation of Section 15 and 16 of the
Nationality Act 2011, which provides for; the co~<iitions and procedure under
which citizenship may be revoked] and in vlola#op;of her right to dignity and right
to recognition of her legal status Jri~er Article' ,'; the African Charter.
~:,::' :t,
"
,
.
91. In terms of Section 15 (1) of the Nationality Act 20Tltthe revocation of nationality
by birth has to be made by,the Presidenh:>I;rthe recommendation of the Minister
of Interior, after having proved that the So'llJ~ Sud~nese national has made a
voluntary declaration renouncing her South Sudanese nationality or on the basis
that the South Sudanese national has enlisted to serve or continues in the service
of a foreign enemy country in violation of any provision of any applicable law of
South Sudan.
92. Section 15 (3) of the Nationality Act 2011requires that the President, before issuing
the order of revocation of nationality by birth shall notify the aggrieved South
Sudanese .:N~tional of his or her right to request the referral of the matter to an
Inquest
"'L . ee within a period of six months from the date of such notice.
c8
s.~~
93. In ter~~;:.<?f
on :~:9t~e nationality Act 2011, the Inquest Committee has to be
appointea:;.py the Minister of Justice on the request of the President to investigate
the matterreferred to it by the President, and give an opportunity to the aggrieved
South Sudanese national to appear before it or be represented by a duly authorized
advocate. After such an investigation, the Inquest Committee shall submit its
report and recommendations to the President for an appropriate decision.
94. The submissions before the Commission indicate that there was no compliance
with the above-discussed provisions - sections 15 and 16 of the Nationality Act
2011 by the Respondent State, which provide for the procedure that ought to be
followed in situations such as the revocation of the Complainant's nationality.
"
51 Resolution
on the Right to Nationality
:J\
0,1 Ht,MJ\N''''
. \<LTiR~
l,1,to
- ACHPR/Res.234(LlII)2013, available at: https://achpr.au-ilnt/lfl/adopt1!d-
resolutions/234-resolution-right-nationality-achprres2341iii2013
'0/
I""
~;< \
l-1~\
L~,
~\t
The African Commission on Hum t}andfeoweSj',Ri9ht
uJ
31 BiJllo Annex Layout, Kombo North DiSl*t,cWrst CO.(3stR'eglo~l:;; ~}~
Phone: (220) 230 4~t}1..~~\(220Ad1J/p5
J-< IJ
Email: aU-ba'niu1~~f~,ca-unioQ.,()r:l:-
9~§
All Organ of the
African (~Yt
Union
'nttPtlaot;lI1~m7~
~lr6i~
ec/pskh/AIO
i'n.
'1,1(.(1.11;
,,0
,,3'{'-'.
............c Fl DE.S ,,~.
~
1
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Responsibility
Collective
That indicates that due process was not followed by the DNPI, which is
exacerbated and more evident from the fact that the Complainant was never
formally given any reason nor an opportunity to be heard in relation to the DNPI's
decision, as the Nationality Act, 2011 requires.
95. The Commission will determine the alleged violation of Article 5 in light of
established international legal standards relating to deprivation of nationality.
96. In the case of Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania», the African Court highlighted
the need to comply with international
standards
.
s of deprivation
of
nationality, by holding that" in international law, i i recog 'Hi,,\~dthat the granting
of nationality
falls within th: ambit of
~?i!~{~reig~i'. of State~53 a~d,
consequently, each State determines the conditions 'f~Hattr ." on of nationality.
However, the power to deprive
or\I{~r.j;;
:<JPM~d}j;ls
to be
h
exercised in accordance with
li ;,,:, avoi~t' m~1lPo/risk
of
statelessness." 54
:~e
97. Following a similar approach in~;1l~.N
Kenya,55 the Commission recalled:' . t "Sta
comes to determining wh~~,~ualifies t
discretion is limited by i,ts'" igations t
of discrimination.Ts,
The mitations.
'. Sta
exercise of discretion in
determining wh~;mqualrfi~,sto
~itizensR J~ue to obligations relating to the
prevention of s 'telessness' also ap~Nly:,in cases qfaeprivation
of nationality, as in
both cases the
te has to ensure 2C)~ Iiance ~ith applicable international legal
standards.
~ct~~~i:~
98. In Anudo v Unit
epublic of Tanzd};tia,57the African Court held that international
e under ve
,'i
i~
exceptional situations,
the loss of nationality.
The's):li conditions'
i)
ii)
iii)
rh;ust§~rve
'~>
_",5)/
Law;
";',,:;:~;
mu~t be proportionate
.
iv)
:l~gi.timate purpose that conforms with International
to the interest protected;
\~l
musfh1st~1l procedural guaranties which must be respected,
concer!ieCl to defend himself before an independent body'"."
allowing the
Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2015) [2018] AfCHPR 5 (22 March 2018), para 77-78.
ICJ, Nottebohm Case, (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) Judgment 6 avril 1955, page 20
54 Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application
No. 012/2015) [2018] AfCHPR 5 (22 March 2018), para 77-78.
55 Communication
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya.
_ __
56 Communication 317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, para 145. ~"'\.0'" Hlj,., ,
52
53
57
Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application
No. 012/2015) [2018] AfCHPR 5 (22 March 201eSt Ilj)ra~~~ph
/r:::-~'
79.
58 Report
.'{,f
of the Secretary General, Human Rights Council, Twentv-Fifth
Session, 19 Decemberi~013
~
(I :(
: \).'
'\
,\
The African Commission on Huma~ a'ncgPf.0pl&S:~Rights J"
)
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distn c~. W.es\ Coa{)tl~;~ioni
. '"
Phone: (220) 230 436' i:tax;::'{t~Ql.~41J(55 QA./ &iil
Email: au.~laf~~tt~i0.I.I~()c.ll
Ii
tffl,w{c6rftl~{~~"X:/
ec/pskh/AIO
.
VIE: ET DES 1"<',
:-~,__ ~/e
.: #
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
99. The above-listed factors are of relevant consideration
in determining whether the
deprivation of nationality in this case was conducted in an arbitrary manner.
100.
Based on the facts and evidence in totality, as submitted by the
Complainant and in the absence of submission from the Respondent State, the
Commission concludes that the Complainant's deprivation of South Sudanese
nationality was not founded on clear legal basis, does not serve a legitimate
purpose that conforms with international law and does not protect any interest.
The facts also indicate that the Respondent State in de .. g the Complainant of
nationality did not comply with procedural gu~~'
d did not give an
opportunity tothe Complainant to defend herse i~\~ ore an
ependent body, as
required by the Nationality Act, 2011 an
violati
of international
standards/ conditions referred to herein above.
:u,s,.
nduct gf the
Respondent State in depriving the ComRlairiant o(per nati9n.ality 'i3 n~t"~omply
with the conditions required by intefnational la\;y, and' tlie!,efore amounts to
arbitrary deprivation/revocation
natiolJaJity, Ui,:violation 9: .rticle 5 of the
African Charter.
' C$
<
':~~lr
Alleged violation of Article 7 (UE: 1{
101.
Article 7 (1) of the Afri 'iYJ,. .
inter alia that, every individual
shall have the right to have his c~t!:seheard.
. comprises: (a) the right to an
appeal to competent national orgill1s ,against acts of violating his fundamental
rights as recowized and guarante'ea?~R),'/,conventions, laws, regulations and
customs in forde,,,. (d) the right to Be~~triedwithin a reasonable time by an
impartial court ~~rtribunal."
91:/I
102.
The Compi~inant argues that the Respondent State has violated her right to
app
ompetent nati6,n~lor.gans against acts violating her fundamental rights
as reco~ruz <~Sl. guaranteed' by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in
force, as provide'tF(oI;,!p ~erms of Article 7 (1) (a) and alleges violation of her right
to be tried within a re'\.sonable time by an impartial court or tribunal as provided
for in Artic!e 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter.P In that regard, the Complainant
submitted tfi.at for more than 5 years after her nationality certificate and national
passport wer~.re\roked and confiscated, she has not been charged in a court of law,
and a civil cas~ she filed at the High Court in Juba has also not been heard. Further,
she submits that on one occasion of her arrest and detention, she was released on
Article 7 of the African Charter provides inter alia that:
1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:
59
(a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights.as
....
recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force;
~\' 0", 'r\U1')'\'\!~~'v~
_,,- '.(, < IF;'
0:-..:
(b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal;
./'.::.'?) S""
11'
~
(c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice;
(d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.
,
\
Ml. ';' ,
\;
,.J
0~
L
The African Commission on Huma.n~ar15l. eo~les':R1ght$";
G-i'
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North DiSt.~, ~~s..t C~tlmgi9~:;~111
Phone: (220) 230 436..;\FaX>'{~2Q)441 Q7Q4i)<Email: aU-ba'R~I<J12.\:lfrj~®_Orgx0
/ I
leA\\ '""' .~v
http, :/a'Ct,jI-1(.au.intl~,():o~
1/
All Organ of Ille
African
Union
~i)' ~
1(~
ec/pskh/ AIO
"
--....
~E:_.
~
""
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Rights
bail, but no criminal charges have been brought against her in court since then,
and remains on bail for over 2 years at the time of submission of her arguments on
admissibility and merits.
103.
The Commission takes note of the effort made by the Complainant to access
domestic judicial remedies after the revocation of her nationality certificate by the
DNPI, but that process posed impediments, leading the Commission to a finding
that local remedies are unavailable to the Complainant when the Communication
was considered on admissibility.
104.
That is evident from the facts -that upon re "
, er nationality, and
confiscation of her nationality certificate and pass
, she in icated her intention
to sue to the Ministry of Justice, Directorate of Civil w\tigation
d Legal Opinion
if her nationality documents are not return~~t:
er by , " i; 'N
dated
27 June 2018, a Senior Legal Counsel4~g then
g
ate Gen I in the
Ministry of Justice, Directorate of Civil LJJigation a Legal
";ll.:~,?"::1wrote to the
Director General of the Directorate of Nationality, Passporf\:ali.a Immigration
(DNPI), communicating the CQ>rn:, . ant' s int~ntion to sue thesDNf'I. The same
letter submitted all documE?ptsrela
0 the Comltl~inant' s claim, and requested
the DNPI to reply withiI1;;,tWoweeks (
xure 9r~::n:eDNPI did not respond to
that notice of intention to'sue.
'
I
0
,',4
oj
, W
i
105.
The Com,Rlainany, actin
' gh her le.g representatives then instituted
a civil suit dat~ir1P17March 2019 ',I14,,:i st the D. "I before the Judiciary of South
Sudan, in the High Court at [uba (Aiirl~exure10).The facts constituting her case are
similarly narrated in the summary of facts section of this decision. In that civil suit,
as filed, the Complainant indicated, that "despite repeated demands and notice of
intention to sue d~t~g. 27 June 201§ having been given to the Defendant [DNPI],
the Defendant has shihhornly and blatantly refused and or neglected to release the
nationality documents of the Plaintiff [the Complainant] or sought audience to
resolve the ma~~r and persists in that refusal, to the detriment of the Plaintiff (the
".' )
Comp Ial~ant!
,1 ~.
"
11,'1--'··
<,'
.
106.
The 'summons to file a defence under that civil suit was served upon the
DNPI but the DNPI did not respond.
107.
, In that-civil suit, the Complainant prayed, amongst others, for judgment to
be entered ag~inst the Defendant [DNPI] for a declaration by the High Court,
asking the Defendant [DNPI] to surrender the Plaintiff's nationality documents to
her. The Complainant also prayed for an order restraining the Defendant from any
future disturbance, obstructions or interference into the quite enjoyment of her
rights, and a confirmatory order that the Plaintiff is a South Sudanese and should
benefit from the basic rights enshrined in the Transitional Constitution of the
Republic of South Sudan, as amended.
t:
(#~
..
~~,,~
.. .
<:>,0 <;:.cH<-
':_,:f> ~.,,)
/.0
, '.' "'to
<,
~J~
•
'
https:" chpr,l3LVi..?
ecjpskhjAIO
v-'-
~
<~?
I'"
The African Commission on Human a9C:4.'Peo~es' ~ights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,~,s~,
ast Regiori'
Phone: (220) 230 4361 F¥_(2~,o 441.p§.9i,
Email: au-ban'ul
m. ~union,or
An Organ of tile
African
Union
"",.
IU
.
is;;;
<:)Q:
o'if~ \)V""
~RICP.\~'
--
11'11(, ET OE.S
-..:..:
«":J
e:
,.<C"
~\
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
108.
Since the Complainant filed that civil suit against the DNPI on 17 March
2019, the case was never set down for a hearing despite her effort in vigilantly
following up on the same, and the High Court did not show any effort to hear the
Complainant, which then prompted her to submit this Communication.
109.
The Commission has held that in matters of deprivation of nationality, the
State has "the obligation to offer the individual the opportunity to challenge the
decision and is of the opinion that the State should conduct a judicial enquiry in
the proper form in accordance with national
"60 The facts presented
indicate that the Respondent State did not comply
110.
The Commission has already found that
State, through the DNPI is in violation of Article 5
amounts to arbitrary deprivation/
between Article 5 and Article 7 of the
the Right to Nationality.e! the
minimum procedural standards so that
acquisition, deprivation or change of
arbitrariness, and are subject to revie
their obligations under A~~~s~e
7 of the
{~;W;f >
~
111.
In Luke MunyarJ,~u TenK~~lJ.ia~?4/tBenj(i:"'tJohn
tli (represented by Norman
Tjombe) v Angola
"lK'i/J~tiJ;it~en
01ltl:1J~162the Co ;c.,~i§sion
held that "the language of
Article 7(1)(a) 0
e Charter itselfis?<;l:clearindkilnon that the provision envisages
the right of in., viduals to access <:6pJ,;t at the national level. Accordingly, the
Commission u';\'erstands Article 7(1)(~f(5Hhe Charter to embrace both a right of
access to court
a right to an eff~ctiv~~emedy at the domestic level in the event
of a violation of
. hts guarante~d in the Charter. A denial of the right of access
"",
[onal judicia
n will a '~ount to a definite and inexcusable violation of
'(
of the
,"+"".", .. ."u.J~'''''
es
,
h'
','yN ~
112.
~imilal' )/;~:tl\e;Commission previously noted that "the right to be heard
requires'[that-the C6Illpla:inant has unfettered access to a tribunal of competent
jurisdiction to hear hi~;,case."63
'\,
113.
In ligJil,tof that jurisprudence and the facts, the Conunission notes that the
Complainant;~as
not given an opportunity to be heard through an in Inquest
Committee, as section 15 and 16 of the Nationality Act requires, which points
towards arbitrariness, and she was denied access to the High Court, which would
Matter of Amnesty International v. Zambia, Communication No. 21298(1999) para. 36-38. Also see the Study by
the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Right to Nationality in Africa, 36 (2004).
60
Resolution on the Right to Nationality - ACHPR/Res.234(LlII)2013, available at: https://achgr.au.int!en!adoptedresolutions!234-resolution-right-nationality-achprres234Iiii2013.
"
_ IIU,
.
62 Communicat.ion 409/12 - Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norny_g.ri""Qpmbe)v
Angola and Thirteen Others, para 138.
,I" ",,:>.,,(.
61
63 Communication
313/05 - Kenneth Good v Botswana (2010) ACHPR para 139 .
~~
..
\.c
\
1/';/""".
':;
,fJo
The African Commission on Human
Peo les""Rights
,_"
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distric~ije<i:t) oast\Region
" _ -«
Phone: (220) 230 4361 ~~; (~~ 441k(i).5'0~
Email: aU-Q.<3nifu.~affi:lD.t.!l.~i~r~.<-0G {?//
https,. ChD~.~b.:lI\ltl~lt~I'<"0~'v/ (/
',IS!'
An Organ 0; the
t
/'0
I.? W,!
African
Union
ec/pskh/AIO
~,
~'"
'i'~ /;/
~/r.
O,'>1ME ET Dt.':> ./ Ii'
~t~~i'1""~
AC:HPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
have given her an opportunity to challenge the decision of the DNPI, by having it
reviewed in an impartial manner. Therefore, the Respondent State conducted itself
in violation of Article 7 (l)(a), as the conduct of the of the High Court after the
Complainant filed a civil suit shows that she was denied access to judicial
remedies by failing to set the matter down for hearing and lack of effort thereof
with no justification or reasons provided to her, taking into consideration the
precarious position in which she found herself - with no nationality. The
Complainant was also arrested, and charged by the police for fraudulently
acquiring nationality documents, but released
USD bail without
appearing in court, and no charges have been bro
after her release
from detention. In such circumstances, the
ent State goes
against its obligations under Article 7 (1) (d , and
obligation to
prevent statelessness.
'
Alleged violation of Article
114.
Article 12 (1)
freedom of movement::~nd
abides by the law", while Ar
the right to leav~ any country
right may onIY~;Re
subject to
national security;: aw and order, public
have the right to
of a State provided he
every individual shall have
and to return to his country. This
for by law for the protection of
th or morality."
II
"
The Comp .~i&'M~L
,ant argues tha,tthe Respondent State has violated her right to
.of movement£w:i!hinSOlJ"thSudan and her right to leave and return to
as provided'(£or,J'fu,termsof Article 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the African
Charte\i:[e
. To substantiate that contention, the Complainant submitted
that as a~J;.esllJt ." . ecation of her nationality and subsequent confiscation of
her natiJ,~Iity certi9' te and national passport by the DNPI in an arbitrary
manner, sill is unable to travel outside South Sudan to seek medical services as
she needs t I, ergo an operation for uterine fibroids. In addition to that, she
narrates sev
incidents of arrest and detention without trial and torture by the
National Security Service (NSS) and the South Sudan National Police Service
(SSNPS),working together with the DNPI due to her presence in South Sudan
without nationality documents.
18b
,,";,~
116.
In Open Society Justice Initiative v. Cote d'Iooiret» the Commission noted the
adverse impact that unfair and unjustifiable denial of nationality anq;,!ack q~
identity / nationality and travel documents has on the exercise ofAf(f~cl'Rljm:fif"o;,'
-------
,
64 Communication
,
//
1/"
318/06 - Open Society Justice Initiative v. C6te d'lvoire, paragraph 159-161.
c,1'<
l)""f,
e;,<::
=»:
;~:;
.
O
" '~
"'\
<....~_
1
J
,)-
J:: ~ I
on Human 3np Pe ples~Ri£l~ts
31 BIJlloA.nnex Layout, Kombo North District, YJe~\ oastRe. glon I
Phone: (220)
4361 F~: (~_fGJ441'\061tf4 /
g: J
Email: -'-~--',
aU-ba!li.Y:i.~arl.it:~uOjcn.or.g
y_"v,
0 (/
~/_'
"'8_
..."
4;
!.he African Commission
All Organ 01tit.
African
Union
0'
no
ec/pskh/AIO
.5J-i
httPS)~~Chp.r.~(y'il\1~<9-~." ,,,,f."'.,,l
',>
I{
?" ".
, "~., O'~IME ET 0"-'.:> " ~
~.. ~~.'4P
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human Rights our
Collective ResponsibHity
Human and Peoples' Rights
movement, due to ensuing restrictions on one's movements within a country and
the harassment that one may be subjected to by public authorities such as the
police force due to lack of such documents, and general inability to leave and
return to a country. In that Communication, the Commission found that the unfair
and unjustifiable denial of nationality to the people belonging to the Dioula ethnic
group in Cote d'Ivoire, which made it impossible for most of them to acquire
nationality and travel documents amounted to a violation of Article 12 (1) and
Article 12 (2) as it impacts their freedom of movement within the country and to
travel abroad.
117.
Similarly, in The Nubian Community in Ken .' The
blic of Kenua/" the
the acquisition of
Commission held that the discrimination against tH~~».b·
identity documents puts them in a precarious position!!.:
ssto violations of
..">'f~+;;: ,;~~~·ry::\~ ;17<
other rights that are intricately linked' to citizenship, iDF udirig'l,freedom of
movement guaranteed by Article 12, as t~~y are tiUrble to n{,'k': freely within the
country.
"
"/:,
,:"
'
~~t.,
!"
118.
The African Court also rna: a similar fi.ijuingin Kennedy. ihana and Others
v Republic of Rioanda/» wh~J;}.
it foun
at by arb~~~rily revoking the Applicants'
passports, the Respondent.State depri ecl ~em of tlieir traveling documents and
consequently prevented'thewfrom r~:tUrI)ip.g
to their country and traveling to
,N. .
other countries angjutl? fromr:~15t~~ii~ing
thei!~fIJgl}t
'to freedom . of movement as
~;;'w'M&P
provided under Article 12(2) of ffi~~€harter.The-'~ourt found the Respondent State
in violation of 4rticle 12 (2) of the'A . an Charter.
~'''~;''''
.,.<..,--,«,~
"<_'
",t:
'f ••
rf",~~ _ _"
119.
In lighe~Qf that jurisprudenc
'l Commission finds that when the
Respondent State..
arbitrarily
reroked'
the Complainant's citizenship and
,,:- • , ;11"
~
confiscated her 'ri'aq,Rnalitycertifi~ate and national passport, which limits her
movements withiri:'tite .cpuntry and prevents her from leaving and returning to
South Sudap, it has cons~:qu.,~l)!ially
violated Article 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the African
Charter, wfiiGR·gr4~ranteefreedom of movement. 67
I
_
Alleged violation of Article 13 (1) and 13 (2)
65 Communication
317/2006 - The Nubian Community in Kenya vs The Republic of Kenya, paragraph 167-170.
Gihana and Others v Rwanda (Application 17 of 2015) 2019 AfCHPR 47 (28 November 2019), Para 108-109.
67 See Communication
318/06 - Open Society Justice Initiative v. Cote d'lvoire, para 157 on subsequent violations,
which read "the Commission refers to its conclusions deriving from the consideration of alleged violations of Article
5 of the Charter to reiterate that the violation of the right to dignity is a direct consequence of the denial of
66
nationality as a legal status. With reference to the said conclusions, dignity is inherent to the ot~er~bt'&ll!Jnd~"'.:tBe..~
Charter. The same reasoning is applicable interchangeably to several other rights under the ~n~er,< c-rnru\;~flen ~(:c '
right such as nationality is denied or challenged, it becomes impossible to enjoy a set of rig~:tt arfs'f,lgOUtoN._he \'
enjoyment of a legal status. In principle, the right to enjoy the benefits attached to nationaliti is V(i lated once t~
individual is deprived of this legal recognition."
. ::
, _'/.I
I
',
C
<t
~I
01
-i
j (/;)
The African Commission on Human1tncq "eoph~,~;Bfgh~s
31 Bljllo Annex Layout. Kombo North District, WesN;:oast R~i6J'lJ
Phone: (220) 230 4361 J~ax,'(229Pf~'~~~~'4
Email: 9u-banlul~af~,i\q~~Uhcrb'~:9r~
9.'-«)
An Organ of the
Africantf
Union
I
',-'
---
https:/achpr:®~@-,,{"f::D
ec/pskh/AIO
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective ResponSibility
120.
Article 13 (1)provides that" every citizen shall have the right to participate
freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen
representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law", while Article 13 (2)
provides that "every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public
service of his country."
121.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent State has violated her right to
participate freely in the government of her country as guaranteed by Article 13 (1)
of the African Charter, because she is unable to centes] el~ctions for any official
position in South Sudan, and will be unable to v .' e as ,.~li.~
has no citizenship
documents, due to revocation and confiscatici
X the R1~pondent State. In
addition to that, the Complainant alleges violation 6f,Article:13 (2) of the African
Charter on the basis that she has been urrqble.to access-the I>11plic service of the
,,''$ _'", ': ~
Respondent State and had her employm 'tin UIeq:?~blic
servjce withdrawn on the
basis that she is not a citizen in light
e re ',t' tion of'l}er nationality and
confiscation of her identity documents.
• .)';!~
'1'";"
122.
In Purohit and ,Moore v The Gal'[lbia,
theQ:~;nmission
stated that "the right
•
,:,·{U;
provided for under Article 13(1) of #1e African harter is extended to 'every
citizen' and its denial canonly be justifiedtpy reaso
egal incapacity or that the
individual is not a citizen o(~ particular St'~te."68
~
~
,
123.
As apparent, Article 13 (1) and (2) provides for rights that can only be
enjoyed on the ,basis of nationality/citizenship. By rendering one stateless puts
that individualjin a position that they/are not entitled to the enjoyment of such
rights. By arbitrarily revoking and confiscating the Complainant's nationality
certificate and
assport, the Re~pondent State severely restricted her right to
freely participate 'lfH~: governmenjof her country, and to gain access to the public
ser~i~e,ofher couriti\5t~$;'J~1US,':t:ommission finds that by arbitrarily revoking
her ri'atiop.ali!Jand cOllfigg~I:: er identity documents in violation of Article 5 of
the African Gharter, the Respondent State consequentially violated her rights
under Article 13 (1)and l3 (2)of the African Charter.
Alleged violation of Article 15
124.
The C9:rhplainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated her rights
under Article 15 of the African Charter, which provides that every individual
shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and
shall receive equal pay for equal work."
/I
:',f.-:.~
;1/K\\U ~,'
68
Purohit and Moore v The Gambia (2003) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2003) para 75,
/
,0\', cl f 1/, r"";r
finding in Gihana and Others v Rwanda (Application 17 of 2015)2019 AfCHPR 47 (2g,.Nov~~bef201~~
Para 110-115.
,,)
I
o A.(
c:~:'
69 See a similar
l>
An Organ of tile
A~~1~~~
ec/pskh/AIO
',. (.
\
\J
I
The African Commission on Human crpd P oPI~~~ Rights I , I j
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distrip{~w~skoast
~e~~9i.on ~(;,"
Phone: (220) 230 4361\~:'~?Q.)
4a-1'D'b0, Cf
Email: au-bnni.1 a'fotjG~I'l~"
r ,J <.'"
(/J
http
GtlJt:l:,al)jfl~
~
,<..S~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
125.
The Complainant is alleging violation of Article 15 of the African Charter
on the basis that due to the revocation of her nationality and confiscation of her
identity documents, she is unable to secure employment. In substantiating this
argument, she submits that she has lost every job she had because of the absence
of citizenship documents, and has to depend on her family and well-wishers for
her daily subsistence.
126.
The relevant facts presented in this regard by the Complainant are that, in
October 2016, the she was appointed as a speech writer in the Office of the VicePresident, General Taban Deng Gai, which led to online complaints in relation to
her appointment, questioning her citizenship, alleging that she was Ugandan, and
not South Sudanese. She alleges that on the basis of those complaints, she was
removed from that position on 26 March 2018 (Annexure All), and later in the
same year the DNPI revoked her nationality and confiscated her nationality
certificate and passport.
127.
She was later appointed on 10 May 2021,as a Member of Parliament in the
Revitalized Transitional National Legislative Assembly by the President of the
Republic of South Sudan, but was later dismissea~Q1122May 2021 on the ground
that she is not South Sudanese.
','.f
,
',.
128.
The Commission has expounded that the guarantee under Article 15means
that the right to work should not be understood as an absolute and unconditional
right to obtain employment. Rather, the State has the obligation to facilitate
employment through the creation of an environment conducive to the full
employment of individuals within society under conditions that ensure the
realization of the dignity of the individual. The right to work includes the right to
freely and voluntarily choose what work to accept."70
/I
129.
In light of those facts and the ascertainment of obligations of States under
Article 15, th~ arbitrary revocation of the Complainant'S nationality and
confiscation 'of.
ationality certificate by the Respondent State coupled with
adverse :09ns uence~!!:thereofgoes against the Respondent State's obligations
under Article 15 - to facilitate employment through the creation of an environment
conducive to the full employment of individuals. Without nationality, as it is in all
precarious situations of statelessness, the Complainant cannot be considered for
any employment opportunity within the country, even for jobs that she may be
qualified for. Therefore, by violating her rights under Article 5 through arbitrary
deprivation of nationality, the Respondent State has acted in violation of the
Complainant's rights under Article 15 of the African Charter.
An o.g30 of lIle
AfriGan~~)
Union ~'xn" .
ec/pskh/AIO
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
130.
The facts, as they are in the present matter, and in line with similar
judgments of the African Court?' and findings of the Commission indicate that the
violation of Article 15 by the Respondent State is a consequence of the major
violation of Article 5 due to arbitrary deprivation of nationality, as it would be in
cases of unjustified/unfair refusal of nationality. Without her South Sudanese
nationality due to the conduct of the Respondent State through DNPI, the
Complainant cannot enjoy the rights she would have been entitled to as a national.
Therefore, the violation of Article 15 is related to and consequential to the violation
of Article 5.72 It is a violation of related rights, intricately linked to citizenship.
Alleged Violation of Article 1
131.
Article 1 of the African Charter provides that;"the Member States of the
Organization of African Unity parties to the present Charter shan recognize the
rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter and shall undertake to adopt
legislative or other measures to give effect to them."
132.
The Commission has held in previous Communications that a violation of
any provision of the Charter by a State Party automatically engages its
responsibility under Article 1.73
','
1
. e'fi;;
133.
The The Commission 'considers.that if a State Party fails to respect, protect,
promote or fulfill any of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, this constitutes a
violation of Article 1 of African Charter. In the present Communication, the
Commission has reached the conclusion that the Respondent State's conduct is in
violation of Ar~cles 5, 12 (1) (2),7 (1) (a) and (d), 13 (1) (2), and 15 of the Charter.
As a consequer\ce/ the Commission finds a violation of Article 1 of the Charter.
See for example Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No, 012/2015) (2018) AfCHPR 5 (22 March
2018), para 121 which reads "In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the violation of the aforesaid related rights
[including Article 15] is a consequence of the major violations, The Court, having established the violation of the
right not to be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, the right not to be arbitrarily expelled from a State and violation
of the right to judicial remedy, defers consideration of the related violations to the stage of consideration of the
71
request for reparation,"
72 See Communication
317/06 - The Nubian Community in Kenya v. Kenya, para 167-168 "The Complainants have
submitted that the discriminatory treatment to which Nubians are subjected, which results in a tenuous citizenship
status leaves the Nubians in a precarious situation and leads to a violation of other rights intricately linked to
citizenship. The Commission has already concluded in its assessment of Articles 2, 3 and 5 above that Nubians are
discriminated against in acquisition of identity documents which effectively hampers their ability to enjoy a range of
rights guaranteed in the Charter. As a result, the Commission will therefore not examine in detail the violations
consequent on this discriminatory treatment. It suffices to note that it is common knowledge that in Kenya, those
without national identity cards cannot vote or contest for public office, cannot be employed in the public service,
and may not have access to public services such as healthcare and education. They may also not be able to register
their marriages, may not be able to enter public buildings or open bank accounts, and may not be able to move
freely within the country and undertake a host of other transactions that are necessary for a dignified life. AIJJhese
affect the ability of Nubians to enjoy the rights guaranteed in Articles 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 (1) of the, Ch~rter."
' r o <"
See Communication 279/03-296/05 - Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Housing Rip/'lts a~d"EViCr,i0o.z <:
9
73
(COHRE) / Sudan (2010) ACHPR, para 227.
An CKgan
.., \
The African Commission on Hurnani'aifd pe{PleJ~Ri9hts
"
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North DistriQ.t\~rv.
£tfoast
Reg'ion
Phone: (220) 230 4361 F~: ~2~ 44<1J05'b4
Email: aU-banjL!l@a'f~jcg..UQion:yorg v
?.I
~S
.! ;;;
a me
African ((ii.i'
Unlon~1.
(J'
ht1P~;~;;\(ll:-IIilIfO.~
o·
ecjpskhjAIO
'- "t: E1 '"
_.,;;
,
",0
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Decision of the Commission
For these reasons, the Commission decides:
i) The Respondent State has violated the rights of the Complainant
5,7 (1) (a) (d), 12 (1) (2), 13 (1) (2) and 15 of the African Charter;
under Articles I,
ii) The Respondent Stateshould take all the necessary steps to restore all the rights of
the Complainant,
including restoration of her So
udanese nationality
certificate and national passport;
,"
iii) The Respondent
State's Courts should heat arguments
and determine
compensation of the Complainant for moral and material Rr~j}l~ice (loss of job
0
opportunities and earnings) as a result 0 ' "6f • as of ih
fiitarl<:~1i~rter'found
herein;
. ;f{"
iv) The Respondent State should take app ~l?riate
Complainant is not subjected to the same viol .
~')J
easures
to; ensure that the
ris in the futur~;"
v)
the right to nationality and
statelessness for its security agencies, es,pecially "~d,)irectorate of Nationality,
Passport and Immigration (DNPI), the South Su(f~n)National Police Service
(SSNPS), and the I
. rati6ri',and Passport Department within the Ministry of
Interior;
1);:;;)1"
I,
vi) The Responde ;:t~f:~
'. State should inform tH,e Commission, in accordance with Rule 125
(1) of the Comll,1:ission's Rules of Procedure, within one hundred and eighty (180)
days from the d
that this decision is transmitted to the Respondent State, of all
action taken or b
taken to impl~ment the decision of the Commission.
,*'J'
J
),~,r
J'
Adopted at the 80th OJ;dinary S'essio~ of the Commission
,
. ,;f';?
02 August 2024,
,. "'i
held virtually from 24 July to
's'
',{
c/
r:
'II ,.,'
U
<lIz
'!
'\ <i
An Organ of the
African
Union
\
"-.....,
!.he African Commission on Ii,V,~a~. nd Peqffi1>.s' ~ig~tS<~
31 Bijtlo Annex Layout. Kombo Nortti O~trf~, !Ve!t'Coas!,.Reglon
Phone: (220) 230'~~61~:W, (.2-2Q1-44~....o5(..o4
Email: au~ at)'u 'atnice-stlnion,o(g
\J\
ttpS%'ctrlpTrntJ~Jlt!o 4) a
:r~c'
""
FUll,
~o
ec/pskh/AIO
~,$-