Diakite v Gabon (Communication 73 of 1992)
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 on Human and Peoples' Rights declared the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The complainant, a Malian national expelled from Gabon in 1989, never contested the expulsion decision through Gabon's judicial system. His return to Gabon was based on a political decision by the Gabonese Head of State following diplomatic talks, not judicial redress. The Commission held that the principle of exhausting internal remedies requires the respondent State to have had the opportunity to redress the injury through its own judicial system before an international forum is seized.
Outcome
Communication dismissed as inadmissible
Facts
Mohammed Lamine Diakité, a Malian citizen, lived in Gabon for 17 years before being expelled on 4 November 1987, leaving behind his wife and five children born in Gabon. The complainant alleged his expulsion resulted from his friend's alleged relationship with the wife of a Gabonese Government Minister, Mr. Mba Eyoghe. An expulsion order (No. 182/MATCLI-DGAT-DDF-SF) was issued on 27 August 1989. A second order (No. 126/MAT/CLD/SE/SG/DGAT/DDF/SF) dated 22 June 1992 nullified the first, authorising the complainant to return to Gabon. The complainant returned to Gabon on 9 December 1997 following a political decision by the Gabonese Head of State after talks with his Malian counterpart during an official visit to Mali. The complainant never contested the expulsion decision through Gabon's judicial system.
Issues
- Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies before seizing the Commission.
- Whether the communication was admissible under Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Orders
- Communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 12(4)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18(1)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18(2)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.