Wakilii

Ajavon v Benin (Application No. 013-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 12 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging multiple human rights violations arising from criminal proceedings in Benin
Decision
Application granted with multiple violations found; CRIET judgment to be annulled; reparations and costs reserved for later determination

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 Court found that the Republic of Benin violated multiple rights of the Applicant under the African Charter and ICCPR, including the right to be tried by a competent court, the right to defence, the right to presumption of innocence, the principle of non bis in idem, the right to two-tier jurisdiction, the right to property, the right to equal protection of the law, the right to dignity, and the duty to guarantee judicial independence. The Court ordered Benin to annul the CRIET judgment and report on compliance within six months.

Outcome

Application granted with multiple violations found; CRIET judgment to be annulled; reparations and costs reserved for later determination

Facts

The Applicant, a Benin businessman and politician, was prosecuted for cocaine trafficking after 18 kg of cocaine was discovered in a container imported by his company in October 2016. After eight days in custody, he was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt by the Cotonou First Class Court of First Instance on 4 November 2016. Subsequently, the customs administration suspended his company's licence and the media regulator cut signals of his radio and TV stations. The Applicant obtained an attestation that no appeal had been filed against the acquittal judgment, but later learned the Prosecutor General had lodged an appeal without serving notice on him. In October 2018, following establishment of the Anti-Economic Crimes and Terrorism Court (CRIET), the Applicant was retried for the same offence and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Applicant brought the matter before the African Court alleging multiple human rights violations.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to hear the application
  2. Whether the application is admissible
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried by a competent court
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence
  5. Whether the Respondent State violated the principle of non bis in idem
  6. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence
  7. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time
  8. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to two-tier jurisdiction
  9. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law
  10. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to liberty and security
  11. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to dignity and reputation
  12. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to property
  13. Whether the Respondent State violated its duty to guarantee the independence of the courts

Orders

  • Dismisses the objections to jurisdiction
  • Declares that it has jurisdiction
  • Dismisses the objections to admissibility
  • Declares the Application admissible
  • Declares that additional submissions on the law creating CRIET and the procedure before CRIET filed on 14 January 2019 are admissible
  • Declares that other additional submissions filed on 14 January 2019 are inadmissible
  • Declares unfounded the allegation that the Applicant was not tried within a reasonable time
  • Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to equality before the law before the Cotonou Court of First Instance
  • Finds that the arrest and detention conditions were not in violation of Article 5 of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant's right to liberty and security
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated Article 5 of the Charter by undermining the Applicant's reputation and dignity
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be tried by a competent court under Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be notified of charges and to access the record under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be represented by Counsel under Article 14(3)(d) of ICCPR
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right of property under Article 14 of the Charter
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated Article 26 of the Charter for failing to guarantee judicial independence
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to two-tier jurisdiction under Article 14(5) of ICCPR
  • Finds that the Respondent State violated the principle of non bis in idem under Article 14(7) of ICCPR
  • Orders the Respondent State to annul judgment No. 007/3C.COR delivered on 18 October 2018 by CRIET and to report within six months
  • Declares that it will rule on other claims for reparation at a later stage
  • Declares that it will rule on costs at a later stage

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of African Court — Material Jurisdiction — Human Rights Violations Leading to Commercial or Political Damages
The African Court has material jurisdiction to consider human rights violations that lead to commercial or political damages, as the nature of the damages does not determine the Court's jurisdiction but rather the nature of the rights violated under the African Charter or other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Effectiveness of Remedies
The rule of exhaustion of local remedies is not absolute and must be assessed in light of the circumstances of each case. Where local remedies exist in theory but are rendered inaccessible or ineffective by the conduct of judicial authorities, including failure to serve notice of appeals and prolonged inaction on pending matters, the applicant is exempted from the obligation to exhaust such remedies.
Fair Trial — Competence of Court — Jurisdiction Based on Pending Appeal
A court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case where it relies on an appeal that was never properly filed or notified to the accused. An appeal that is not registered in the court registry and not served on the respondent has no legal effect and cannot prevent a judgment from acquiring the authority of res judicata. Consequently, a newly established court cannot claim jurisdiction over such a case as a pending matter.
Fair Trial — Right to Defence — Access to Case File and Notification of Charges
The right to defence requires that an accused person be informed of the nature of the charges and have access to the case file to enable proper preparation of defence. Merely indicating the general nature of the offence without disclosing the case file or allowing on-site consultation violates the right to defence and the principle of equality of arms, particularly where the proceedings may result in a heavy sentence.
Fair Trial — Right to Representation by Counsel — Trial in Absentia
The right to be represented by counsel is practical and effective and must not be subjected to excessive formalism. Where an accused has indicated by letter that he does not intend to appear in person and requests to be tried in his absence, the court must allow representation by counsel unless it can demonstrate a necessary reason for requiring personal appearance. Failure of a duly summoned accused to appear cannot deprive him of the right to be represented by counsel.
Non Bis in Idem — Retrial After Acquittal — Authority of Res Judicata
The principle of non bis in idem prohibits prosecution or trial of a person for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted. Where a judgment of acquittal has acquired the authority of res judicata because no valid appeal was lodged, a subsequent trial by a different court for the same facts and involving the same parties violates the prohibition against double jeopardy, regardless of whether the second court purports to reverse the first judgment.
Presumption of Innocence — Public Statements by State Authorities
The right to presumption of innocence extends throughout the entire judicial process and binds not only the criminal judge but all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities. Public statements by high-level political and administrative authorities suggesting an accused person's guilt, made before or after an acquittal judgment, violate the presumption of innocence where such statements are susceptible to creating or sustaining suspicion of guilt in the mind of the public.

Legislation cited (16)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Benin Constitution Article 114
  • Benin Code of Criminal Procedure Article 206
  • Benin Code of Criminal Procedure Article 428
  • Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018 (Benin)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 9

Cases cited (10)

  • Reverend Christopher Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2011)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Jean-Claude Roger Gombert v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Application No. 038/2016)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Commission v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • Akdivar and Others v Turkey (Application No. 21893/93)
  • Minelli v Switzerland (Application No. 8660/79)
  • Great Stevens et al v Italy (Application Nos. 18640/10; 18647/10; 18663/10; 18668/10; 18698/10)
  • Rafael Marques de Morais v Angola (Communication No. 1128/2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ajavon v Benin (Application No. 013-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 12 (29 March 2019)
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.