Falana v African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (Application No. 019-2015)
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 Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. The African Commission is not a State Party to the Charter or Protocol, and applications under Article 5(3) can only be brought against States that have deposited declarations under Article 34(6). The relationship between the Court and the Commission is based on complementarity, and the Court cannot compel the Commission to seize it with cases.
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and standing
Facts
On 4 May 2015, the Applicant, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, filed a communication with the African Commission concerning systematic human rights violations in Burundi, including attacks on peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights activists following protests over President Pierre Nkurunziza's decision to run for a third term. The Applicant requested the Commission to refer the communication to the Court. When the Commission failed to do so, the Applicant filed this application on 7 September 2015 in his personal capacity and on behalf of alleged victims, seeking an order compelling the Commission to refer the matter to the Court.
Issues
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear an application filed against the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, an organ of the African Union rather than a State Party.
- Whether the Applicant has standing to bring an application against the Respondent under Article 5(3) and Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
- Whether the Court can compel the African Commission to refer a communication to the Court under Rule 29 of the Rules and Article 2 of the Protocol.
Orders
- Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Court finds it has no jurisdiction to hear the case in terms of Article 3(1), 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol.
- Court finds that pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules, it cannot compel the Respondent to seize it.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.