Wakilii

Divine Chi and Others v Republic of Cameroon (Communication 650-17)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2022] ACHPR 26 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging human rights violations arising from the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon
Decision
Communication declared inadmissible for failure to satisfy Article 56(2) of the African Charter

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 on the ground that it failed to satisfy Article 56(2) of the African Charter. The Commission found that the prayers sought by the Complainants contravened Article 3(b) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which protects the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Member States. The prayer requesting withdrawal of military presence from the territory of the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons implied that the territory was separate from the Republic of Cameroon, thereby challenging the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Cameroon. All other admissibility requirements under Article 56 were satisfied.

Outcome

Communication declared inadmissible for failure to satisfy Article 56(2) of the African Charter

Facts

The Complainants, 75 individuals represented by Professor Carlson Anyangwe, filed a Communication on behalf of themselves and the people of the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons. They alleged that since December 2016, following protests by lawyers and teachers in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon (Northwest and Southwest), the government of Cameroon engaged in massive arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture, killings, internet shutdowns, and military crackdown. The protests arose from grievances about marginalization, discrimination, and the imposition of the French legal system and language on the Common Law regions. The Complainants traced the historical background of Southern Cameroons from British administration through a 1961 plebiscite that led to political association with the Republic of Cameroon (former French Cameroun), the subsequent abolition of the federal system in 1972, and what they characterized as annexation and colonization. They alleged violations of multiple articles of the African Charter and sought provisional measures including withdrawal of military forces and restoration of internet services.

Issues

  1. Whether the Communication satisfies the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the authors of the Communication have been properly identified under Article 56(1).
  3. Whether the Communication is compatible with the African Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union under Article 56(2).
  4. Whether the Communication contains disparaging or insulting language under Article 56(3).
  5. Whether the Communication is based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media under Article 56(4).
  6. Whether local remedies have been exhausted or are available, effective and sufficient under Article 56(5).
  7. Whether the Communication was submitted within a reasonable period under Article 56(6).
  8. Whether the matter has been previously settled by another body under Article 56(7).

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible.
  • Parties to be notified of the decision in accordance with Rule 118(4) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility of Communications — Compatibility with Constitutive Act — Territorial Integrity
A communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is inadmissible under Article 56(2) of the African Charter where the prayers sought contravene Article 3(b) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which requires the defence of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Member States.
Admissibility of Communications — Identification of Authors — Mandate Not Required
Article 56(1) of the African Charter requires only that communications indicate the names of those submitting them, not the names of all victims of alleged violations, and does not require proof that the authors have received a mandate from the populations they claim to represent.
Admissibility of Communications — Disparaging Language — Freedom of Expression Balance
Language in a communication is not disparaging or insulting under Article 56(3) of the African Charter merely because it tarnishes the image of the State or its institutions where the language expresses the complainant's honest perception and opinion of alleged human rights violations, provided the language is not aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of State institutions.
Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Unavailability in Crisis Situations
Local remedies are deemed unavailable under Article 56(5) of the African Charter where a generalized atmosphere of instability and fear of persecution exists, such that citizens whose lives are in danger would be impeded from seeking protection from the authorities identified as perpetrators of alleged violations.
Admissibility of Communications — Previously Settled Matters — Substantial Similarity Test
A communication is not inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter as a previously settled matter where it does not involve the same persons, the same facts, and the same complaints as an earlier communication, even if it concerns the same general subject matter and alleges violations of the same Charter articles.
Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Three-Part Test
For local remedies to be required to be exhausted under Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the remedy must be available (the petitioner can pursue it without impediment), effective (it offers a prospect of success), and sufficient (it is capable of redressing the complaint).

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17(1), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23(1), 24
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 63
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 65
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(b)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 4
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Rule 103(4)
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Rule 112
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Rule 118(3)
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Rule 118(4)
  • UN General Assembly Resolution 1352(XIV)
  • UN General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV)
  • UN General Assembly Resolution 1608(XV)

Cases cited (15)

  • Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth v Angola and Thirteen Others (Communication 409/12)
  • Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon (Communication 260/02)
  • Communication No. 1962/2010, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/107/D/1962/2010 (2013)
  • Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon (Communication 266/03)
  • Law Society of Zimbabwe et al v Zimbabwe (Communication 321/2006)
  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe (Communication 293/04)
  • Eyob B. Asemie v Kingdom of Lesotho (Communication 435/12)
  • Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto v Republic of Kenya (Communication 464/14)
  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (Communication 147/95-149/96)
  • Open Society Justice Initiative v Cote d'Ivoire (Communication 318/06)
  • Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan (Communication 279/03-296/05)
  • Haregewoin Gabre-Selassie and IHRDA v Ethiopia (Communication 301/05)
  • Vojnovic v. Croatia, Comm. 1510/2006, UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1510/2006 (HRC 2009)
  • Application no. 58587/00 by Ferdinanda NOBILI MASSUERO against Italy
  • Malawi Africa Association and Others v Mauritania (Communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97, 210/98)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Divine Chi and Others v Republic of Cameroon (Communication 650-17) [2022] ACHPR 26 (2 August 2022)
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.