Wakilii

Falana v African Union (Application No. 001-2011)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2012] AfCHPR 5 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application challenging the validity of Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

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 held by a majority of seven to three that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an application brought by an individual against the African Union. The Court found that Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, read together, require that applications from individuals be brought against State Parties that have ratified the Protocol and made the requisite declaration. The African Union, not being a State Party, could not be sued under the Protocol. The dissenting judges held that the Court had jurisdiction and that Article 34(6) was inconsistent with the African Charter.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Femi Falana, a Nigerian human rights lawyer, filed an application against the African Union challenging the validity of Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Article 34(6) requires a State Party to make a special declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases from individuals and NGOs. Falana alleged that he had made several attempts to get Nigeria to deposit the required declaration but to no avail. He argued that Article 34(6) violated his rights under the African Charter, including his rights to freedom from discrimination, fair hearing, and equal treatment. He sought a declaration that Article 34(6) was illegal, null and void, and an order annulling it. The African Union opposed the application on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and argued that the impugned article was not in conflict with the Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application brought by an individual against the African Union.
  2. Whether Article 34(6) of the Protocol, which requires a State Party to make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases from individuals and NGOs, is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 26 and 66 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  3. Whether the Court has the power to declare Article 34(6) of the Protocol null and void.

Orders

  • The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case instituted by Femi Falana against the African Union.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of International Courts — Ratione Personae — Applications Against International Organizations
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction only over State Parties to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. An international organization such as the African Union, which is not a State Party to the Protocol, cannot be sued before the Court under the Protocol.
International Legal Personality — Capacity to be Sued — International Organizations
An international organization has a legal personality separate from the legal personality of its Member States. However, international obligations arising from a treaty cannot be imposed on an international organization unless it is a party to such a treaty or is subject to such obligations by any other means recognized under international law.
Access to Courts — Individual Standing — Declaration Requirement
Under Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, direct access to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights by an individual is subject to the deposit by the Respondent State of a declaration authorizing such a case to be brought before the Court.
Dissenting Opinion — Inconsistency Between Protocol and Charter — Article 34(6)
In the dissenting opinion, it was held that Article 34(6) of the Protocol, by denying individuals direct access to the Court where a State has not made the required declaration, is inconsistent with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which does not deny such access. The Protocol, being subservient to the Charter, should supplement and enhance the protection of human rights, not restrict it.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 66
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 2
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 3(h)
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union Article 4
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 Article 34
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations 1986 Article 34

Cases cited (8)

  • Michelot Yogogombaye v The Republic of Senegal (Application No. 001/2008)
  • Reparations for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports, 1949, p 179
  • Efoua Mbozo'o Samuel v. The Pan African Parliament
  • Convention Nationale des Syndicals du Secteur Education (CONASYSED) v. The Republic of Gabon
  • Delta International Investments S.A., MR. AGL de Lang and Mme. Lang v. The Republic of South Africa
  • Emmanuel Joseph Uko v. The Republic of South Africa
  • Timan Amir Adam v. The Republic of Sudan
  • Ekollo Moundi Alexandre v. The Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Falana v African Union (Application No. 001-2011) [2012] AfCHPR 5 (26 June 2012)
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.