Wakilii

Goornah v Republic of Mauritius (Communication 596 of 2016)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] ACHPR 134 · 2018 Communication Inadmissible AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter arising from criminal conviction and sentencing in Mauritius
Decision
Communication dismissed as inadmissible

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 declared the communication inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(6) of the African Charter. The Commission held that a delay of three years, one month and fifteen days between exhaustion of local remedies and submission of the communication was not a reasonable time period where no explanation for the delay was provided. The Commission found that the complainant had exhausted local remedies by appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and that referral to the National Human Rights Commission was not a required judicial remedy.

Outcome

Communication dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

Romy Goornah, a Mauritian national, was arrested at SSR International Airport in Mauritius on 24 December 2006 for importing 100 grams of cocaine. He denied ownership of the purse containing the drugs and claimed they may have been planted in his unlocked trolley bag. He requested police review airport CCTV footage but was told cameras were not functional. On 30 June 2008, he was tried before the Court of Special Assizes without a preliminary inquiry or jury. On 20 August 2008, he was convicted and sentenced to 32 years penal servitude less 20 months remand. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal on 25 January 2012. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council denied special leave to appeal on the ground that there was no serious risk of miscarriage of justice. The complainant filed a communication with the African Commission on 26 January 2016, alleging violations of the African Charter arising from judicial bias and unfair trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication satisfied the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the communication demonstrated a prima facie violation of the African Charter (Article 56(2)).
  3. Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5), specifically whether appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council constituted exhaustion and whether referral to the National Human Rights Commission was a required judicial remedy.
  4. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period from the exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(6).

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(6) of the African Charter.
  • Parties to be notified of the decision in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Reasonable Time Requirement — Article 56(6) African Charter
A communication submitted to the African Commission three years, one month and fifteen days after exhaustion of local remedies does not satisfy the reasonable time requirement under Article 56(6) of the African Charter where the complainant provides no explanation for the delay.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — Highest Court
Where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest and final court in a State Party to the African Charter, an appeal to that court constitutes exhaustion of local remedies for purposes of Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — National Human Rights Commissions — Non-Judicial Remedies
National Human Rights Commissions do not fall under the category of judicial remedies which must be exhausted under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Recourse to such commissions is essentially non-judicial and may be taken as preliminary amicable settlement.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Prima Facie Violation — Article 56(2) African Charter
For a communication to satisfy Article 56(2) of the African Charter, it must demonstrate compatibility ratione materiae (violation of a right recognized in the Charter), ratione personae (violation by a State Party), and ratione temporis (events occurring after the Charter came into force), and must indicate a prima facie violation.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Standard Practice
While the African Charter does not define what constitutes a reasonable period under Article 56(6), the practice of similar regional human rights instruments such as the Inter-American Commission and Court and the European Court suggests six months as the usual standard, though each case must be treated on its own merit.

Legislation cited (24)

  • 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 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(4)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius Article 81
  • Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius Article 111
  • Protection of Human Rights Act 1998 s.4A
  • Protection of Human Rights Act 1998 s.4A(1)
  • Protection of Human Rights Act 1998 s.4A(4)
  • Criminal Appeal Act s.19A(4)
  • Dangerous Drugs Act (Mauritius)
  • Judicial Committee Act 1833 (United Kingdom)

Cases cited (10)

  • Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others v Zimbabwe (Communication 306 of 2005)
  • Jawara v The Gambia (Communication 147 of 1995)
  • FIDH and Others v Senegal (Communication 304 of 2005)
  • Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania (Communication 333 of 2006)
  • Communications 54/91 - Malawi African Association v. Mauritania; 61/91 - Amnesty International v. Mauritania; 98/93 - Ms. Sarr Diop, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme and RADDHO v. Mauritania; 164/97, 196/97 - Collectif des Veuves et Ayants-droit v. Mauritania; 210/98 Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l'Homme v. Mauritania
  • Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (Communication 221 of 1998)
  • Kenneth Good v Botswana (Communication 313 of 2005)
  • Tsikata v Ghana (Communication 322 of 2006)
  • Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308 of 2005)
  • Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Sudan (Communication 310 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goornah v Republic of Mauritius (Communication 596 of 2016) [2018] ACHPR 134 (28 April 2018)
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.