Africa Legal Aid v Gambia (Communication 207 of 1997)
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 African Commission declared the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission found that the complainant neither resorted to available legal remedies in The Gambia nor brought the alleged violations to the attention of the respondent state. The Commission held that residence outside the jurisdiction does not automatically excuse the requirement to exhaust local remedies, particularly where NGOs had assisted the complainant and could have facilitated pursuit of domestic remedies.
Outcome
Communication dismissed as inadmissible without consideration of merits
Facts
Africa Legal Aid submitted a communication on behalf of Isaac Banda, a minor from Malawi, and his brother Robert Banda. The complainant alleged that Isaac Banda was fraudulently taken from Malawi to The Gambia by a British national, Mr Collyer, who promised to employ him as a domestic servant and finance his education in lieu of salary. Upon arrival in The Gambia, Isaac was allegedly denied access to education, occasionally denied food, and in 1995 was ordered to leave the employer's house. With intervention from the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies and the Centre for Youths and Children, Isaac was repatriated to Malawi. The complainant alleged violations of the African Charter and international instruments protecting children's rights. The respondent state denied being informed of the alleged abuses and argued that domestic legal remedies were available but not pursued.
Issues
- Whether the communication was admissible despite the complainant's failure to exhaust local remedies in The Gambia.
- Whether the respondent state could be held responsible for alleged human rights violations by a private individual where the state authorities were not demonstrably informed of the violations.
Orders
- Communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18(3)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56.5
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 24(1)
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 11
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 32(1)
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 32(2)
Cases cited (3)
- Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme des Libertes v Chad (Communication 74 of 1992)
- Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana (Communication 103 of 1993)
- Rights International v Nigeria (Communication 215 of 1998)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.