Tomorrow the Court will render judgement in four cases and hand down one ruling, and its promising to be a huge day.
Likely, most eyes will be on the Ingabire v Rwanda judgement. As many readers will be aware, in January 2013 Rwanda signed the Article 34(6) Special Declaration that allows individuals and NGOs with observer status direct access to the Court. Under this provision Victoire Ingabire brought a case against Rwanda alleging violations of several African Charter rights. On the day of the Court hearing, news broke that the Court had suspended the matter following reports that Rwanda was seeking to review its Special Declaration status. As I have written previously here and here, the whole issue appears somewhat confused. It is not entirely obvious whether Rwanda was intending to “review” its commitments or simply withdraw, whether Rwanda can withdraw or if it can withdraw and whether any withdrawal should apply to pending cases.
What is clear, is that the Court is now under huge scrutiny as to how it will handle the matter, especially since this is the first time it has examined such an issue. Will the Court allow Rwanda to withdraw? if it does, will the Court still consider pending cases? Clearly this decision will have much wider repercussions for the Court, with AU member states very likely to be casting a curious eye over the judgement. For current Special Declaration member states (Mali, Cote D’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Malawi, Benin and Ghana) the interest may lie in the flexibility (or not) the Court gives Rwanda, bringing with it the potential for member states who have signed the Special Declaration to prevent damaging or difficult cases from coming before the Court by withdrawing or “reviewing” their status. For those member states yet to sign the Special Declaration, the Court’s decision may help solidify either their opposition to signing the Special Declaration (if for example Rwanda are not allowed to withdraw, or perhaps a time limit is imposed) or potentially persuade more member states to sign up, especially if Rwanda is allowed to withdraw in some form. High stakes indeed.
The other cases are also very interesting. We have the African Commission v Libya case which has been rumbling on since 2012. As I have written here and here, the Court has continued to valiantly issue orders seeking to protect the African Charter rights of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, even if such orders are cast into an apparent void, since Libya has failed to acknowledge the Court so far. An interesting wrinkle is that the case was transferred to the Court from the African Commission, so hopefully we may see a little more discussion from the Court on how and why the Commission decided to transfer the case and whether the Court applies any particular test or standard when considering a case from the Commission rather than directly from an individual or NGO. It will also be fascinating to see how the Court handles the general complaint, given that matters have moved on significantly since the application was first lodged before the African Commission in 2012.
The Court will also deliver its reparations judgement in the Konate v. Burkina Faso case. This will be the Court’s third reparations judgements after Mtikila (where no reparations were ordered) and Zongo (where significant reparations were handed out). The Konate case goes some way back, with judgement rendered in December 2014, when the Court found Burkina Faso in violation of several of the applicant’s African Charter rights with regards to his work as an investigative journalist. Hopefully, this long-pending reparations ruling will continue to add to the Court’s jurisprudence and continue to solidify this vital part of the Court’s work. We also expect a ruling in the Omary et al v Tanzania case. The Court’s website is not clear what this ruling will be on, but the Court has previously found the applicants had failed to exhaust local remedies, so this ruling may well be a continuation of this issue.
Lastly, the Court will render judgement on the merits in the Abubakari v Tanzania case. The Court’s website is frustratingly devoid of information on this case, but the African Legal Centre has a good summary of the case, which concerns the fair trial rights of the applicant, currently in the Tanzanian criminal legal system, who challenges a conviction and 30 year sentence for two counts of armed robbery. This judgement will add to the steady flow of cases such as Thomas v Tanzania and Onyango et al v Tanzania, in which the Court has examined the Tanzanian criminal justice system, and so far found it wanting.
All in all, tomorrow promises to be a big day for the Court. The Monitor hopes to be live tweeting tomorrow morning as the judgements roll out. Please be sure to follow us @acthpr_monitor to keep up to date.