Wakilii

Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] AfCHPR 5 · 2018 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 arbitrary deprivation of nationality and expulsion
Decision
Application granted; Respondent State ordered to restore Applicant's nationality and allow his return to Tanzania

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 held that Tanzania arbitrarily deprived the Applicant of his Tanzanian nationality without sufficient proof, violating Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court found that the Applicant, who had held Tanzanian nationality since birth with valid documents, was expelled without proper judicial process. Tanzania violated the Applicant's right not to be expelled arbitrarily and his right to be heard by a judge under Article 7 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the ICCPR. The Court ordered Tanzania to restore the Applicant's rights, allow his return, and amend its legislation to provide judicial remedies in citizenship disputes.

Outcome

Application granted; Respondent State ordered to restore Applicant's nationality and allow his return to Tanzania

Facts

The Applicant, born in 1979 in Tanzania, held Tanzanian nationality with a valid passport and birth certificate. In 2012, police retained his passport during marriage formalities, suspecting his citizenship. After investigation in 2014, the Minister of Home Affairs declared him not a Tanzanian citizen, cancelled his passport, and ordered his deportation. The Applicant was arrested, detained for seven days, beaten, and forced to sign documents admitting he was Kenyan. He was expelled to Kenya, which also declared him in irregular status and expelled him back. The Applicant's father and mother testified on oath that he was their son and requested a DNA test, which Tanzania refused. The Applicant has since lived in no man's land between Tanzania and Kenya without access to basic services.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  2. Whether the Application is admissible, particularly whether local remedies were exhausted and whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time.
  3. Whether the Respondent State arbitrarily deprived the Applicant of his Tanzanian nationality in violation of Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  4. Whether the Applicant's expulsion from Tanzania violated his right not to be expelled arbitrarily under Article 13 of the ICCPR.
  5. Whether the Applicant's right to be heard by a judge was violated under Article 7 of the Charter and Article 14 of the ICCPR.

Orders

  • Objection on lack of jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objection on inadmissibility dismissed.
  • Application declared admissible.
  • Respondent State arbitrarily deprived the Applicant of his Tanzanian nationality in violation of Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • Respondent State violated the Applicant's right not to be expelled arbitrarily.
  • Respondent State violated Articles 7 of the Charter and 14 of the ICCPR relating to the Applicant's right to be heard.
  • Respondent State ordered to amend its legislation to provide individuals with judicial remedies in the event of dispute over their citizenship.
  • Respondent State ordered to take all necessary steps to restore the Applicant's rights, by allowing him to return to the national territory, ensure his protection and submit a report to the Court within forty-five (45) days.
  • Ruling on other forms of reparation and costs reserved.
  • Applicant allowed to file written submissions on other forms of reparation within thirty (30) days from the date of notification of this Judgment.
  • Respondent State to file its submissions within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the Applicant's submissions.

Rules and key headnotes

Right to Nationality — Arbitrary Deprivation — Burden of Proof
Where a State contests the nationality of a person who has held that nationality since birth on the basis of legal documents established by the State itself, the burden of proof lies on the State to prove that the person is not a national.
Right to Nationality — Deprivation — International Standards
The power to deprive a person of nationality must be exercised in accordance with international standards to avoid statelessness. Deprivation must be founded on clear legal basis, serve a legitimate purpose conforming with international law, be proportionate to the interest protected, and include procedural guarantees allowing the person to defend himself before an independent body.
Right to Nationality — Arbitrary Deprivation — DNA Evidence
Where there are contradictions in witness statements about a person's paternity and nationality, a DNA test is the appropriate scientific proof. A State's refusal to conduct a requested DNA test deprives itself of the opportunity to obtain proof of its claims that a person is not a national.
Expulsion — Citizens — Prohibition
A State cannot turn its citizen into a foreigner by depriving him of his nationality for the sole purpose of expelling him. A citizen cannot be expelled from his own country or prevented from returning to his country.
Expulsion — Aliens — Procedural Guarantees
Even if a person is regarded as an alien, expulsion must comply with Article 13 of the ICCPR, which requires that the person be allowed to submit reasons against expulsion and have the case reviewed by a competent authority. Arbitrary expulsion without such guarantees violates international law.
Right to Fair Hearing — Nationality Disputes — Judicial Remedy
In matters of deprivation of nationality, a State has the obligation to offer the individual the opportunity to challenge the decision before a competent court. Legislation that makes the Minister's decision final without possibility of judicial appeal violates the right to be heard under Article 7 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Statelessness — State Responsibility — Prevention
Prior to expelling a person, a State must take necessary measures to prevent the person from being rendered stateless. A State must satisfy itself that if the person is not a national of the expelling State, the person is a national of the receiving State.

Legislation cited (21)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 12
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 17
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 13
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 15
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 23
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 6
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 11
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 15
  • Tanzanian Immigration Act 1995 s.10
  • Tanzanian Immigration Act 1995 s.11
  • Tanzanian Immigration Act 1995 s.30
  • Law Reform Act Cap. 310

Cases cited (9)

  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Frank David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2012)
  • Peter Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2015)
  • Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v Iran) [1980] ICJ page 3
  • Matter of South-West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) (Preliminary Objections), ICJ, Collection 1962 page 319
  • Nottebohm Case, (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) Judgment 6 avril 1955
  • Amnesty International v. Zambia, Communication No. 21298(1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012-2015) [2018] AfCHPR 5 (22 March 2018)
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.