Human Rights Litigation in Africa Under Attack

Abstract

Human rights values, to which international organisations adhere, serve not only as the working premise for achieving their goals but also constitute an inherent part of their legal framework and judicial decisions. Established by States that claim to share a fundamental set of values from the outset and are committed to reflecting these values throughout their activities, the African Union is no exception. The organisation articulated its fundamental principles and values in its founding Treaties, which include, among others, ‘respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law, and good governance.’ Over time, various preventive, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms have been developed to realise these human rights objectives in the continent. This progress includes the establishment of the African Commission in 1987 and the creation of the African Court in 1998, as well as the expansion of human rights jurisdiction of sub-regional courts over time. This article delves into the resistance faced by the judicial mechanisms used to enforce human rights in Africa. As demonstrated, in all cases under discussion, a State subject to an adverse ruling of the court responded by questioning its legitimacy and authority, advocating for institutional reforms to weaken the fledgling human rights system on the continent. The article highlights the similarities and differences between all cases, illustrating that the impact of political reaction in the case of the continental African Court and the SADC Tribunal has been much more severe than the ECOWAS and the EACJ court. It is argued that the institutional design of the courts, the scale of the community, relative State power, the subject matter of the judgment, the requirement to obtain consensus to revise the founding treaty of the courts, and the engagement of civil societies played crucial roles in determining the type and outcome of backlash in the cases under discussion.