Wakilii

Abubakar v Ghana (Communication 103 of 1993)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [1996] ACHPR 3 · 1996 Communication Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication alleging human rights violations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Communication upheld; violations of Articles 6 and 7.1(d) established; Government directed to provide reparations

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Commission held that Ghana violated Articles 6 and 7.1(d) of the African Charter by detaining the complainant for seven years without charge or trial. The detention was arbitrary and the period clearly violated the reasonable time standard. Local remedies were not required given the complainant's exile status and the nature of the complaint. The Commission urged the Government to repair the prejudice suffered. The complaint regarding the right to return was dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Outcome

Communication upheld; violations of Articles 6 and 7.1(d) established; Government directed to provide reparations

Facts

Alhassan Abubakar, a Ghanaian citizen, was arrested on 16 June 1985 for allegedly cooperating with political dissidents. He was detained without charge or trial under the Preventive Custody Law for seven years. He escaped from a prison hospital on 19 February 1992 and fled to Côte d'Ivoire. After his escape, his sister and wife were arrested and detained for two weeks by authorities seeking his whereabouts. The complainant alleges that Ghanaian law subjects escapees to imprisonment of six months to two years regardless of whether their original detention was lawful. The Government stated that political prisoners had been released and that the complainant could return without prosecution for fleeing, but could be tried for any criminal offences committed.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainant's detention without charge or trial for seven years violated his right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the African Charter.
  2. Whether the complainant's detention without trial for seven years violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 7.1(d) of the African Charter.
  3. Whether the complainant's right to return to his country under Article 12.2 of the African Charter has been violated.
  4. Whether local remedies must be exhausted where the complainant has escaped from unlawful detention and resides outside the respondent state.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.
  • Violation of Articles 6 and 7.1(d) of the Charter found.
  • Government urged to take steps to repair the prejudice suffered by the complainant.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Right to Liberty — Arbitrary Detention — Detention Without Charge or Trial
Detention without charge or trial for seven years violates the right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the African Charter, which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and requires that deprivation of freedom be based on reasons and conditions previously laid down by law.
Human Rights — Fair Trial — Right to be Tried Within Reasonable Time
Detention for seven years without trial clearly violates the reasonable time standard stipulated in Article 7.1(d) of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception for Exiled Complainants
Where a complainant has escaped from unlawful detention and resides outside the respondent state, it would not be logical to require him to return to that state to exhaust local remedies, and accordingly local remedies are not considered available to such complainant for purposes of Article 56.5 of the African Charter.
Human Rights — Burden of Proof — Government Failure to Respond
Where no substantive information is forthcoming from the government concerned in response to a communication, the Commission will decide on the facts as alleged by the complainant.

Legislation cited (6)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.7.1(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.12.2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56.5
  • Preventive Custody Law of 1992 (P.N.D.C.L. 4) s.2

Cases cited (1)

  • communications 25/89, 59/91, 60/91, 64/92, 87/93 and 101/93

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abubakar v Ghana (Communication 103 of 1993) [1996] ACHPR 3 (31 October 1996)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.