[2025] AfCHPR 5

[2025] AfCHPR 5

The Court held that its jurisdiction is manifestly lacking in respect of applications filed against entities that are not State Parties to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Protocol and the Court's jurisprudence make clear that only State Parties can be respondents before the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] AfCHPR 5
Parties
Applicant: Aliyu Suleiman; Respondent: African Union (AU); Respondent: African Union Commission (AUC)
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Application No. 014/2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Aboud P, Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Gaswaga J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko VP, Tchikaya J
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Regional Courts, Standing in Public Interest Litigation, Rights of Participation in Governance
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Standing in Public Interest Litigation Rights of Participation in Governance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aliyu Suleiman

Applicant

African Union (AU)

Respondent

African Union Commission (AUC)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Jurisdictional Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction over applications filed against the African Union and its Commission.
  2. 2 Whether entities that are not State Parties to the Protocol can be respondents before the Court.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged violations of participation rights under the African Charter and ICCPR are justiciable against the AU and AUC.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that its jurisdiction is manifestly lacking in respect of applications filed against entities that are not State Parties to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Protocol and the Court's jurisprudence make clear that only State Parties can be respondents before the Court. The African Union and its Commission, as international organizations, are not parties to the Protocol and therefore cannot be subject to its jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed its previous decision in Femi Falana v. African Union, which established that international organizations not party to a treaty are not bound by its obligations. Consequently, the Application, which...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The Court holds that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to consider the Application.