ajavon c republique du benin requete n 0312017 2018 afchpr 17 5 decembre 2018

AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE f .\0' ,/~\'<;. 1 .1""" i ~J~I J6.J"":f1 J :.,J... . UNIAo AFRICANA AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES AFFAIRE SEBASTIEN GERMAIN AJAVON C. REPUBLIQUE DU BENIN REQUETE N"013/2017 ORDONNANCE PORTANT RABAT DU DELIBERE 05 DECEMBRE 2018 , , I I La Cour composee de : Sylvain ORE, President, Ben KIOKO, Vice-President, Gerard NIYUNGEKO, EI Hadji GUISSE, Rafaa BEN ACHOUR, Angelo v. MATUSSE, Suzanne MENGUE, M-Therese MUKAMUUSA, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Juges et Robert ENO, Greffier. En I'affaire : Sebastien Germain AJAVON represente par: i. Me Marc BENSIMHON, avocat au Barreau de Paris ii. Me Yaya POGNON, avocat au Barreau de Cotonou iii. Me Issiaka MOUSTAPHA, avocat au Barreau de Cotonou contre REPUBUQUE DU BENIN representee par: i. Me Cyrille DJIKUI, avocat au Barreau de Cotonou, ancien Batonnier ii. Me Elie VLAVONOU KPONOU, avocat au Barreau de Cotonou iii. Me Charles BADOU, avocat au Barreau de Cotonou. Apres en avoir delibere, rend la presente ordonnance: I. LES PARTIES 1. Le Requerant, est sieur Sebastien Germain AJAVON, (ci-apres « Ie Requerant»), homme d'affaires et homme polilique de la Republique du Benin. 1 i I i I 2. L'Etat defendeur est la Republique du Benin (ci-aprE:Js denommee «Etat defendeur ») qui est devenue partie a la Charte africaine des droits de I'homme et des peuples, (ci-apres denommee «Ia Charte»), Ie 21 octobre 1986 et au Protocole relatif a la Charte africaine des droits de I'homme et des peuples (ci- apres denomme « Ie Protocole »), Ie 22 aoOt 2014. L'Etat defendeur a en outre depose, Ie 8 fevrier 2016, la Declaration prevue a I'article 34(6) du Protocole acceptant la competence de la Cour pour recevoir les requetes directement introduites par les individus et les organisations non gouvemementales. II. OBJET DE LA REQUETE 3. La Cour a ete saisie de la requete en date du 27 fevrier 2017. Dans celle-ci, Ie Requerant a expose qu'entre les 26 et 27 octobre 2016, la gendarmerie du Port Autonome de Cotonou et ia Direction des douanes beninoises ont ete alertees de la presence d'une quantite importante de coca'ine dans un conteneur a bord du navire « MSC Sophie» transportant des produits surgeles. 4. Sur la base de cette information donnee par les Services de Renseignements et de la Documentation de la Presidence de la Republique du Benin, Ie Ministere public et la Douane beninoise ont, des Ie 28 octobre 2016, ouvert une procedure jud/ciaire contre Ie Requerant et trois de ses employes pour trafic de dix-huit (18) kg de coca'ine pure trouves dans un conteneur de produits surgeles importes par la Societe Comptoir Mondial de Negoce (COMaN SA) dont il est I'administrateur general. 5. Le 04 novembre 2016, la Chambre correctionnelle du Tribunal de premiere instance de premiere c1asse de Cotonou, par jugement n'262/ IFD-16, a relaxe Ie Requerant et un des employes des fins de la poursuite pour insuffisance de preuves et au benefice du doute. Les deux autres employes ont ete relaxes «purement et simplement ». 2 6. Le Requerant a egalement allegue que I'administration des Douanes a procede a la suspension du terminal a conteneur de la Societe de Courtage de Transit et de Consignation (SOCOTRAC) ainsi qu'au retrait de I'agrement de commissionnaire en douane a la Societe SOCOTRAC. La Haute Autorite de l'Audiovisuel et de la Communication (HAAC), par deux decisions datees du 28 novembre 2016 a procede a la coupure des signaux de la station de radio diffusion SOLEIL FM ainsi que de la chaine de television SIKKA TV. Le Requerant a allegue qu'il est I'actionnaire majoritaire dans to utes ces societes. 7. Dans sa requete soumise a la Cour Ie 27 fevrier 2017, Ie Requerant, estimant que I'affaire de trafic international de drogue et la procedure subsequente s'inscrivent dans Ie cadre d'«un complot ourdi » contre lui et violent ses droits garantis et proteges par les instruments internationaux des droits de I'homme, a saisi la Cour de ceans. 8. Par ailleurs, en octobre 2018, Ie Requerant a fait etat de la creation, en juillet 2018, d'une Cour d'exception, par l'Etat defendeur, en vue de Ie juger a nouveau pour la meme affaire de trafic de drogue, et qui I'a effectivement condamne a vingt ans de prison ferme. III. RESUME DE LA PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COUR 9. La Requete a ete re~ue au Greffe Ie 27 fevrier 2017 et a ete notifiee a I'Ectat defendeur Ie 31 mars 2017. Par lettre datee du 29 mai 2017, re~ue au Greffe Ie 1er juin 2017, I'Etat defendeur a soumis son memoire sur les exceptions preliminaires. 3 10.Dans une lettre datee du 17 juillet 2017, rec;:ue au Greffe Ie 19 juillet 2017, Ie Requerant a soumis sa replique aux exceptions preliminaires soulevees par I'Etat defendeur. Le 29 aoUt 2017, l'Etat defendeur a soumis sa duplique sur les exceptions preliminaires. 11. Le 09 octobre 2017, Ie Requerant a repondu a la duplique. Le 14 novembre 2017, l'Etat defendeur a soumis sa reponse aux observations du Requerant sur sa duplique. 12. Le 27 novembre 2017, Ie Greffe a informe les parties que la procedure ecrite dans la presente affaire etait close. 13. Dans une lettre datee du 06 novembre 2017, rec;:ue au Greffe Ie 11 decembre 2017, Ie Requerant a allE~gue de nouvelles attaques contre sa personne et I'utilisation de nouvelles methodes par I'Etat defendeur en vue d'asphyxier ses entreprises et a sollicite, de ce fait, la tenue d'une audience publique. Le 26 mars 2018, il a reitere cette demande. 14. Le 09 mai 2018, la Cour a tenu son audience publique et a mis I'affaire en delibere tout en accordant a l'Etat defendeur I'autorisation de deposer, dans un delai de trente (30) jours, sa reponse aux nouveaux moyens du Requerant. Ladite reponse a ete deposee au Greffe Ie 13 mai 2018. 15.Dans une lettre datee du 15 octobre 2018 et rec;:ue Ie 16 octobre 2018, Ie Requerant a soumis a la Cour de nouvelles allegations en rapport avec I'affaire. Dans ses ecritures, il a fait valoir qu'alors que I'arret de la Cour de ceans est attendu par les parties, I'Etat du Benin a cree, par une loi datee du 02 juillet 2018, une juridiction d'exception nommee « Cour de Repression des Infractions Economiques et du Terrorisme (ci-apres « CRIET ») pour connaitre, une fois encore, de I'affaire de trafic international de drogue qui I'a irnplique. II a egalement allegue que cette nouvelle procedure implique de nouvelles violations de ses droits 4 I I I , et a sollicite que la Cour rende une ordonnance demandant a I'Etat defendeur de surseoir a son proces devant la CRIET. 16. Le 24 octobre 2018, Ie Greffe a notiM a I'Etat defendeur les nouvelles allegations du Requerant. 17. Le 26 octobre 2018, Ie Requerant a soumis une autre lettre dans laquelle il fait etat de I'arret de condamnation rendu par la CRIET et a demande a la Cour de rendre, a titre de mesures provisoires, une ordonnance de sursis a I'execution dudit arret. Cette lettre a ete enregistree au Greffe Ie 31 octobre 2018. 18. Le 31 octobre 2018, Ie Greffe a re9u du Requerant une lettre datee du meme jour. Dans celle-ci, Ie Requerant a produit Ie compte-rendu de I'Assemblee generale des magistrats de Cotonou, qui soutient I'illegalite de la CRIET et a demande a la Cour de prendre toutes mesures appropriees, y compris Ie sursis a I'execution de I'arret rendu par la CRIET jusqu'a I'examen du pourvoi en cassation. 19. Le 05 novembre 2018, Ie Requerant a adresse a la Cour une lettre rectificative de celie en date du 31 octobre 2018 et a demande ala Cour de considerer Ie sursis a I'execution de I'arret de la CRIET jusqu'a sa decision et non jusqu'a I'examen du pourvoi en cassation. Cette lettre a ete re9ue au Greffe Ie 20 novembre 2018 et notifiee a I'Etat defendeur Ie meme jour. 20. Le 07 novembre 2018, Ie Greffe a notifie a l'Etat defendeur les lettres du Requerant datees respectivement du 26 et 31 octobre 2018. 21. Le 12 novembre 2018, Ie Requerant a reitere sa demande de sursis a I'execution de I'arret de la CRIET. Cette lettre a ete re9ue au Greffe Ie 19 novembre 2018 et notiMe a "Etat defendeur Ie 20 novembre 2018. 5 _ _ 11 =~_I I 22. Le 13 novembre 2018, l'Etat defendeur a formule ses observations sur la recevabilite des nouvelles allegations soumises par Ie Requerant. Les observations de I'Etat defendeur ont ete re<;:ues Ie 14 novembre 2018 au Greffe qui les a notifiees au Requerant Ie meme jour. 23. Le 20 novembre 2018, Ie Greffe a re<;:u les observations de I'Etat defendeur, formulees dans sa lettre en date du 19 novembre 2018, sur Ie sursis a I'execution de I'arret rendu par la GRIET. Le meme jour Ie Greffe a transmis lesdites observations au Requerant. 24. Le 21 novembre 2018, Ie Requerant a soumis a la Gour un ensemble de documents, a I'appui des nouvelles allegations de violation de ses droits, constitue d'un rapport d'etude menee par Ie Barreau du Benin sur la GRIET, la transcription de la declaration du President de I'Union National des Magistrats du Benin ainsi qu'une cople de I'arret rendu par la GRIET. Lesdits documents ont ete transmis a I'Etat defendeur Ie meme jour. IV. POSITION DE LA COUR 25. La Gour note que les developpements intervenus apres la mise en delibere de I'affaire ont un lien avec les faits allegues dans la Requete introduite Ie 27 fevrier 2017 et presentent une contuinite certaine avec ces derniers. 26.A cet egard, la Gour considere que dans I'interet d'une bonne administration de la justice, elle dispose du pouvoir inherent de decider de rabattre Ie delibere, de reouvrir les debats et de recevoir les nouvelles pieces deposees par les parties apres la mise en delibere de I'affaire. V. DISPOSITIF 6 27. Par ces motifs, LACOUR, A I'unanimite, i. Rabat Ie delibere en I'affaire objet de la Requete n0013/2018 Sebastien Germain Ajavon c. Republique du Benin et decide la reouverture de la procedure ecrite; ii. Reqoit les nouvelles pieces deposees par les parties apres la mise en delibere de I'affaire ; iii. Accorde au Requerant un delai de trente (30) jours a compter de la date de notification de la presente ordonnance pour soumettre sa replique au memoire en defense de I'Etat defendeur sur tous les aspects de I'affaire. Ont signe: Sylvain ORE, President; Ben KIOKO, Vice-president; Gerard NYUNGEKO, Juge ; EI Hadj GUISSE, Juge ; Rafaa BEN ACHOUR, Juge ; Angelo v. MATUSSE, Juge ; Suzanne MENGUE, Juge ; M-Therese MUKAMULlSA, Juge ; Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Juge ; 7 :J • II Chafika BENSAOULA, Juge ;c<bcc . et Robert ENO, Greffier. Fait a Tunis, Ie cinquieme jour du mois de decembre 2018, en anglais et en franyais, Ie texte franyais faisant foL I I I 8 I AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE .. /r:!:l\ . ~-- 'l ~..l~l J6.J"'11 UNIAo AFRICAN A AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES THE MATIEROF SEBASTIEN GERMAIN AJAVON V. REPUBLIC OF BENIN APPLICATION No. 013/2017 ORDER FOR RE-OPENING OF PROCEEDINGS 5 DECEMBER 2018 I .~I The Court composed of: Sylvain ORE, President; Ben KIOKO, Vice-President; Gerard NIYUNGEKO, EI Hadji GUISSE, Rafaa BEN ACHOUR, Angelo v. MATUSSE, Suzanne MENGUE, M-Therese MUKAMULlSA, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Judges; and Robert ENO, Registrar, In the matter of: Sebastien Germain AJAVON represented by: i. Advocate Marc BENSIMHON, Barrister at the Bar of Paris; ii. Advocate Yaya POGNON, Barrister at the Bar of Cotonou; and iii. Advocate Issiaka MOUSTAPHA, Barrister at the Bar of Cotonou. versus REPUBLIC OF BENIN represented by: i. Advocate Cyrille DJIKUI, Barrister at the Bar of Cotonou, former President of the Bar; ii. Advocate Elie Vlavonou KPONOU, Barrister at the Bar of Cotonou; and iii. Advocate Charles BADOU, Barrister at the Bar of Cotonou. after deliberation issues the following Order: I. THE PARTIES 1. The Applicant Mr. Sebastien Germain Ajavon (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") a businessman and politician, is a national of Benin. JG 1 L. 2. The Respondent State is the Republic of Benin (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent State") which became party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter") on 21 October 1986 and to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") on 22 August 2014. The Respondent State, on 8 February 2016, also deposited the declaration prescribed under Article 34(6) of the Protocol accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive cases directly from individuals and Non- Governmental Organisations. II. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION 3. The Court was seized of the Application on 27 February 2017. The Applicant submits that, between 26 and 27 October 2016, the gendarmerie of the Autonomous Port of Cotonou and the Benin Customs Department were alerted to the presence of a large quantity of cocaine in a container aboard the ship "MSC Sophie" transporting frozen goods. 4. Based on the information given by the Intelligence and Documentation Department of the Office of the President of the Republic of Benin, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Benin Customs, as of 28 October 2016, initiated legal proceedings against the Applicant and his three employees for trafficking eighteen (18) kilograms of pure cocaine found in a container of frozen goods imported by Societe Comptoir Mondial de Negoce (COM ON SA) of which he is the Chief Executive Officer. 5. On 4 November 2016, the Criminal Chamber of Cotonou First Class Court of First Instance Court, by Judgment No. 262/IFD-16, acquitted the Applicant and one of his employees for lack of evidence and for the benefit of the doubt. The other two employees were also released without being charged. 2 6. The Applicant also alleges that, in the process, the Customs Administration suspended the container terminal of the Transit and Consignment Brokerage Company (SOCOTRAC) and withdrew its customs brokerage license. The High Authority for Audiovisual and Communication (HAAC), by two decisions both dated 28 November 2016, disconnected the signals of the radio station SOLEIL FM and the TV channel SIKKA TV. The Applicant alleged that he is the majority shareholder in all these companies. 7. In his application of 27 February 2017, the Applicant indicated that he brought the matter before this Court in the belief that the international drug trafficking case and the subsequent proceedings were part of a conspiracy orchestrated against him and violated his human rights guaranteed and protected by international human rights instruments. 8. Moreover, in October 2018, the Applicant reported the creation by the Respondent State, in July 2018, of a special court to try him once again for the same case of drug trafficking, and actually sentenced him to twenty years in prison. III. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 9. The Application was filed on 27 February 2017 and served on the Respondent State on 31 March 2017. The Respondent State filed its Brief on Preliminary Objections on 1 June 2017. 1O.ln a letter dated 17 July 2017 and received at the Registry on 19 July 2017, the Applicant filed his Reply to the Respondent State's preliminary objections; and on 29 August 2017, the Respondent State submitted its Rejoinder on the Applicant's Reply to the preliminary objections. 11. On 9 October 2017, the Applicant replied to the Rejoinder, and on 14 November 2017, the Respondent State submitted its Response to the Applicant's observations on its Rejoinder. 3 12. On 27 November 2017, the Registry notified the parties that the written proceedings in this case were closed. 13.ln a letter dated 6 November 2017, received on 11 December 2017, the Applicant alleged further attacks against his person and the use of new methods by the Respondent State to stifle his companies and as such requested a public hearing of the case. The Applicant reiterated this request on 26 March 2018. 14. On 9 May 2018, the Court held a public hearing, and granted the Respondent State leave to file its Response to the Applicant's further submissions within thirty (30) days. This Response was filed at the Registry on 13 May 2018. 15. In a letter dated 15 October 2018, received on 16 October 2018, the Applicant brought before the Court new allegations in respect of the case in which he indicated that while the judgment of the Court was being awaited by the parties, the Respondent State, by a Law dated 2 July 2018, established a special court named "Economic Crimes and Terrorism Court (hereinafter referred to as "CRI ET") to once again hear the case of international drug trafficking which involves him. He also alleged that the new proceedings involves fresh violations of his rights for which he solicits the Court to issue an order requesting the Respondent State to stay its proceedings before CRIET. 16. On 24 October 2018, the Registry notified the Respondent State of the new allegations tendered by the Applicant. 17. On 26 October 2018, the Applicant submitted another letter in which he referred to the CRIET judgment convicting him and requested the Court to issue, as a provisional measure, an order for a stay of execution of that judgment. This letter was registered in the Registry on 31 October 2018. 4 :=J l .! 18. On 31 October 2018, the Registry received from the Applicant a letter dated the same day. In that letter, the Applicant referred to the record of proceedings of the General Assembly of Cotonou Magistrates highlighting the illegality of CRIET and requesting this Court to take all appropriate measures, including a stay of execution of the judgment delivered by CRIET, until consideration of the cassation appeal. 19. On 5 November 2018, the Applicant addressed to the Court a corrigendum to the letter dated 31 October 2018, and requested the Court to consider a stay of execution of the CRIET judgment up to the date of its decision rather than until consideration of the cassation appeal. This letter was received at the Registry on 20 November 2018 and served on the Respondent State on the same day. 20. On 7 November 2018, the Registry notified the Respondent State of the Applicant's letters dated 26 and 31 October 2018, respectively. 21. On 12 November 2018, the Applicant reiterated his request for a stay of execution of the CRIET judgment. This letter was received at the Registry on 19 November 2018 and served on the Respondent State on 20 November 2018. 22.0n 13 November 2018, the Respondent State filed its observations on the admissibility of the new allegations submitted by the Applicant. The Respondent State's submissions were received on 14 November 2018 at the Registry, which transmitted the same to the Applicant on the same day. 23. On 20 November 2018, the Registry received the Respondent State's observations as contained in the latter's letter dated 19 November 2018, on the prayer for a stay of execution of CRIET judgment. On the same day, the Registry transmitted the said observations to the Applicant. 24. On 21 November 2018, the Applicant submitted to the Court a set of documents in support of the allegations of violation of his rights, consisting 1§-~ 5 ~ e--S !, of a study report conducted by the Benin Bar Association on CRIET, the transcript of the statement of the President of the National Union of Magistrates of Benin and a copy of the judgment delivered by CRIET. The said documents were served on the Respondent State on the same day. IV. POSITION OF THE COURT 25. The Court notes that the developments that occurred after the matter was placed on the deliberations are linked to the facts alleged in the Application filed on 27 February 2017 and represent an obvious continuity with the facts in question. 26. In this regard, the Court holds that in the interest of proper administration of justice, it has the inherent power to decide to set aside the deliberation, reopen the pleadings and admit the new evidence filed by the parties after the matter has been placed under deliberation. V. OPERATIVE PART 27. For these reasons: The Court unanimously, i. sets aside the deliberation on Application No. 013/2017 - Sebastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, and decides to reopen written pleadings. ii. admits the new evidence filed by the parties after the matter was placed under deliberation; 6 II ~~, I I iii. allows the Applicant thirty (30) days from the date of notification of this Order to submit on all aspects of the case, his Reply to the Respondent State's Response. Signed: Sylvain ORE, President; Ben KIOKO, Vice-President; Gerard NIYUNGEKO, Judge ...--::~~~~~~5t:=:;;;-- EI Hadji GUISSE, Judge ~ Rafaa BEN ACHOUR, Judge '/ZS "'f::!"~ f.l,rll. Angelo V. MATUSSE, Judge Suzanne MENGUE, Judge M-Therese MUKAMULlSA, Judge Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Judge Chafika BENSAOULA, Judge; and Robert ENO, Registrar. Done at Tunis, this Fifth Day of December in the Year 2018, in English and French, the French text being authoritative. 7