Wakilii

Dicko and Others v Faso (Application No. 037-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2024] AfCHPR 25 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging amendments to Burkina Faso's Electoral Code
Decision
Application dismissed as inadmissible without consideration of merits

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 on Human and Peoples' Rights declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The applicants challenged amendments to Burkina Faso's Electoral Code but failed to follow the correct domestic procedure by seizing the Constitutional Council against an already-enacted law without first bringing proceedings before ordinary courts as required under Burkina Faso's Constitution.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible without consideration of merits

Facts

In July 2019, Burkina Faso's President initiated a national dialogue in preparation for 2020 elections. In January 2020, the Government tabled a bill to amend the Electoral Code, despite insecurity causing displacement of populations and mayors in several regions. The Government set elections for 22 November 2020. After political opposition and a withdrawn bill, the Government re-tabled amendments in July 2020, which were adopted on 25 August 2020 and promulgated on 28 August 2020. The amendments empowered the Government to invoke force majeure or exceptional circumstances to hold elections. On 16 September 2020, the applicants petitioned the Constitutional Council challenging the amendments' constitutionality. On 16 October 2020, the Constitutional Council dismissed the petition, holding that citizens may only challenge enacted laws through constitutional review proceedings brought before ordinary courts, not directly to the Constitutional Council.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants exhausted local remedies before bringing their application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
  3. Whether the application is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50 of the Court's Rules.

Orders

  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
  • Ordered that each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Requirement to Follow Correct Domestic Procedure
An applicant must exhaust local remedies by following the correct domestic procedure before seizing an international court. Where a state's constitution requires constitutional challenges to enacted laws to be brought through ordinary courts rather than directly to the constitutional council, an applicant who seizes the constitutional council directly has not exhausted local remedies.
Admissibility — Local Remedies — Available, Effective and Satisfactory Remedies
Local remedies to be exhausted must be available, effective and satisfactory. The mere existence of a remedy does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement; an applicant is only required to exhaust a remedy insofar as it offers prospects of success. Exhaustion is assessed as at the time the application is filed and applicants must await the outcome of pending domestic proceedings before seizing an international court, unless such proceedings are unduly prolonged.
Admissibility Requirements — Cumulative Nature — Effect of Non-Compliance
Admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50 of the Court's Rules are cumulative. If one requirement is not met, the application is inadmissible and the court need not rule on other admissibility requirements.
Default Judgment — Requirements and Procedure
A court may enter a decision in default where a party does not appear or fails to defend its case within the prescribed period, provided three requirements are met: notification of the defaulting party, default by one of the parties, and application by the other party or the court on its own motion. The court may issue a default judgment suo motu for the proper administration of justice even where the other party has not requested it.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance Article 4(2)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 25
  • ECOWAS Protocol A/SP1/12/01 on Democracy and Good Governance Article 2(1)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Burkina Faso Constitution Article 152
  • Burkina Faso Constitution Article 157(2)
  • Burkina Faso Constitution Article 175(2)
  • Law No. 034-2020/AN of 25 August 2020
  • Law No. 014-2001/AN of 3 July 2001

Cases cited (10)

  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (2016) 1 AfCLR 153
  • Fidèle Mulindahabi v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 010/2017)
  • Yusuph Saïd v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2019)
  • Robert Richard v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 035/2016)
  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v Republic of Tanzania (2020) 4 AfCLR 219
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (2014) 1 AfCLR 219
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (2014) 1 AfCLR 314
  • Sébastien Germain Marie Akoué Ajavon v Republic of Benin (2020) 4 AfCLR 133
  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (2019) 3 AfCLR 48
  • Moussa Kante and Others v Republic of Mali (Application No. 006/2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dicko and Others v Faso (Application No. 037-2020) [2024] AfCHPR 25 (13 November 2024)
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.