[1999] ACHPR 2
The African Commission held that the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission clarified that the remedy sought from the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission, an administrative body, did not satisfy the requirement of judicial remedies. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] ACHPR 2
- Parties
- Applicant: Alfred B. Cudjoe; Respondent: Republic of Ghana
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Communication 221 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Outcome
- communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of internal remedies
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Dismissal, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Right to Fair Hearing
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred B. Cudjoe
Applicant
Republic of Ghana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Communication / Admissibility
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the complainant exhausted all available domestic remedies before approaching the African Commission.
- 2 Whether the decision of the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission constitutes exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Ratio Decidendi
The African Commission held that the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The Commission clarified that the remedy sought from the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission, an administrative body, did not satisfy the requirement of judicial remedies. The Commission emphasized that after the employer failed to comply with the Human Rights Commission's decision, the complainant should have pursued the matter before the courts of law in Ghana. Since the applicant did not provide evidence of having sought judicial remedies or explain why such remedies were unavailable or unduly prolonged, the communication was declared inadmissible for...
Court Disposition
communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of internal remedies
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of internal remedies.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
**5 May 1999 Communication No. 221/98**
# **AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Twenty-Fifth Ordinary Session 26 April - 5 May 1999**
#### **ALFRED B. CUDJOE**
**v.**
## **GHANA**
#### **DECISION**
- BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Youssoupha Ndiaye VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Vera Valentino Duarte Martins COMMISSIONERS: Dr. Ibrahim Ali Badawi El-Sheikh, Dr. Mohammed Hatem Ben Salem, Professor E. V. O. Dankwa Professor Issac Nguema, Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga, Dr. Nyameko Barney Pityana, Mr. Kamal RezagBara - Citation: Cudjoe v. Ghana, Comm. 221/98, 12th ACHPR AAR Annex V (1998-1999) - Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples' Rights Extracted from the Commission's Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 136 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 753 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001; (2000) AHRLR 127 (ACHPR 1999)
RAPPORTEUR
24th session - Commissioner B. Pityana
25th session - Commissioner B. Pityana
#### THE FACTS
- 1. The complainant is a Ghanaian citizen, formerly employed at the Embassy of Ghana in Conakry, Guinea. - 2. He alleges that his contract as translator/bilingual secretary at the said Embassy was wrongly terminated, by letter dated 24 June 1994.
- 3. He claims that his dismissal was based on a report produced by the Guinean authorities, describing him as the brains behind an attack against the Ghanaian Chancery and the Ghana Airways offices in Conakry, perpetrated by furious Ghanaian residents. - 4. The complainant states that he did not have the opportunity of seizing any appellate authority before being dismissed for the above-mentioned reasons.
5. The complainant presented a decision handed down by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice of Ghana, dated 18 May 1997, to the effect that the complainant's dismissal without benefits was null and void and that Mr. Alfred Cudjoe was entitled to some compensation.
- 6. He further states that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to comply with this decision. - 7. He sent a copy of the said decision to the Commission.
## SUBSTANCE OF GRIEVANCE:
8. The complainant alleges violation of articles 7, 4 and 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
### PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- 9. At the 24th ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 22 31 October 1998, the Commission decided to be seized of the communication and requested the complainant to provide it with more information as regards the exhaustion of all internal remedies. - 10. On 26 November 1998, letters were dispatched to both parties to inform them of the Commission's decision. - 11. At the 25th session, held in Bujumbura, Burundi, from 26 April 5 May 1999, the Commission deliberated on the admissibility of the communication.
### LAW ADMISSIBILITY
- 12. In terms of the provisions of article 56, 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, "communications [......] relating to Human and Peoples' Rights received by the Commission, shall be examined if they [......] are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged." - 13. The African Commission observes that while the complainant has attached to his dossier the decision granted in his favour by the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission, he does not give any indication (despite the request made to him in this regard following deliberations at the 24th session) as to the procedure he has followed before the courts. For, it should be clearly stated, the internal remedy to which article 56.5 refers entails remedy sought from courts of a judicial nature, which the Ghanaian Human Rights Commission is clearly not. From the African
Commission's point of view, seizing the said Commission can taken as preliminary amicable settlement and should, in principle, considering the employer's failure to react, be followed by an action before the law courts.
# FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION
14. In conformity with the above-mentioned provisions of the Charter, declares the communication inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of internal remedies.
Bujumbura, 5 May 1999.