Wakilii

Human Rights Council and Others v Ethiopia (Communication 445-13)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2015] ACHPR 5 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging Ethiopian legislation and administrative measures affecting civil society organisations
Decision
Communication declared inadmissible; complainants at liberty to approach the Commission if constitutional review does not yield remedy sought

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 held that the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The complainants challenged Ethiopian legislation and administrative measures affecting civil society organisations but did not pursue a constitutional review before Ethiopia's House of Federation, which has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional disputes. The Commission found that constitutional review is an available, effective remedy that operates according to legal principles and must be exhausted before approaching the Commission, notwithstanding that the House of Federation is not a court of law.

Outcome

Communication declared inadmissible; complainants at liberty to approach the Commission if constitutional review does not yield remedy sought

Facts

In January 2009, Ethiopia adopted the Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 requiring all human rights organisations to re-register. The first complainant, Human Rights Council (HRCO), applied for registration in October 2009. In December 2009, the CSO Agency froze HRCO's assets totalling approximately nine million Birr (US$566,000) on grounds that a charitable society cannot convert to an Ethiopian charitable society while possessing foreign funds. HRCO challenged the freezing through administrative appeals to the Director and Board of the CSO Agency, then appealed to the Federal High Court and finally to the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court, all of which upheld the asset freeze. HRCO's domestic challenges focused on whether the freezing was premature and unlawful under the CSO Proclamation and regulations, but did not invoke constitutional rights or pursue constitutional review before the House of Federation. The complainants then submitted a communication to the African Commission alleging violations of multiple Charter rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainants exhausted local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter before submitting the communication to the African Commission.
  2. Whether a constitutional review before Ethiopia's House of Federation constitutes an available and effective local remedy that must be exhausted.
  3. Whether the House of Federation and Council of Constitutional Inquiry, though not courts of law, qualify as competent organs for purposes of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible under Article 56(5) of the African Charter for failure to exhaust local remedies.

Rules and key headnotes

Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Review Mechanisms
For purposes of Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the essential characteristic of a local remedy that must be exhausted is its demonstrable effectiveness in redressing a particular violation, not the nomenclature by which the national organ is named. The remedy must operate in strict observance of procedural guarantees of a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial organ, and must be based on enforceable law from which the relief it offers earns its mandatory or coercive force.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Non-Judicial Constitutional Bodies
The proposition that local remedies to be exhausted must be sought from courts of a judicial nature must be understood in light of the standard constitutional model where courts adjudicate complaints. It is not the mere nomenclature that qualifies a national organ's mechanism as a remedy for purposes of Article 56(5) of the Charter. Where a non-judicial body has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional disputes and operates according to legal principles with binding decisions, it may constitute an effective remedy that must be exhausted.
Ethiopian Constitutional Review — House of Federation as Remedy
Ethiopia's House of Federation, assisted by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry, constitutes an effective local remedy for constitutional challenges that must be exhausted before approaching the African Commission. The House of Federation's power is of a legal nature, not pure political discretion, as it is mandated to decide constitutional issues in accordance with the Constitution, legal principles of constitutional interpretation, and in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights treaties ratified by Ethiopia.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Duty to Raise Constitutional Issues Domestically
Where a complainant challenges domestic law and administrative measures as violating Charter rights that are also guaranteed under the respondent state's constitution, the complainant must raise those constitutional issues through available domestic constitutional review mechanisms. A complainant cannot proceed before domestic courts on purely statutory grounds without invoking constitutional rights, then raise those constitutional violations for the first time before the African Commission, thereby denying the state the opportunity to address the alleged violations through its domestic mechanisms.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Theoretical Apprehensions Insufficient
Theoretical apprehensions about the inefficacy of a local remedy cannot absolve a complainant from the obligation to pursue and exhaust local remedies which present a likelihood of success. If a remedy has the slightest likelihood to be effective, the applicant must pursue it. Arguing that local remedies are not likely to be successful, without trying to avail oneself of them, will not satisfy the exhaustion requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.

Legislation cited (40)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.9(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.9(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(3)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(4)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Art.56(7)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 (Ethiopia)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.6(1)(l)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.18(2)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.77(3)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.85
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.88(1)
  • Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 Art.98(1)
  • Council of Ministers Regulation for the Registration and Administration of Charities and Societies (Ethiopia) Art.10(2)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.9(4)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.13(1)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.29(2)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.31
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.37
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.40
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.42
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.62(1)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.82
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.83(1)
  • Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Art.84
  • Council of Constitutional Inquiry Proclamation No. 250/2001 (Ethiopia) Art.6(2)
  • Council of Constitutional Inquiry Proclamation No. 250/2001 (Ethiopia) Art.17
  • Council of Constitutional Inquiry Proclamation No. 250/2001 (Ethiopia) Art.20(2)
  • Proclamation No. 25/1996 (Ethiopia) Art.8(1)
  • Proclamation No. 251/2001 (Ethiopia) Art.7

Cases cited (24)

  • Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299/05) [2006] ACHPR
  • Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (Communication 221/98) [1999] ACHPR
  • Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87/93) [1995] ACHPR
  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147/95 and 149/96) [2000] ACHPR
  • Amnesty International and Others v Sudan (Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 & 89/93) [2000] ACHPR
  • FIDH and others v Senegal (Communication 304/05) [2006] ACHPR
  • SERAP v Nigeria (Communication 338/07) [2010] ACHPR
  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Zimbabwe (Communication 284/03) [2009] ACHPR
  • Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (Communication 245/02) [2006] ACHPR
  • Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon (Communication 260/02) [2004] ACHPR
  • Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim v Sudan (Communication 386/10) [2013] ACHPR
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication 275/03) [2007] ACHPR
  • Priscilla Njeri Echaria v Kenya (Communication 375/09) [2011] ACHPR
  • Kenneth Good v Botswana (Communication 313/05) [2010] ACHPR
  • Avocats Sans Frontières v Burundi (Communication 231/99) [2000] ACHPR
  • Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Egypt (Communication 334/06) [2011] ACHPR
  • Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras (1988) IACtHR Series C No. 4
  • M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (Application No. 30696/09) [2011] ECHR
  • Đorđević v Croatia (Application No. 41526/10) [2011] ECHR
  • Van Oosterwijck v Belgium (Application No. 7654/76) [1980] ECHR
  • Kudła v Poland (Application No. 30210/96) [2000] ECHR
  • R.T v France (Communication No. 262/87) [1989] HRC
  • Lucía Arzuaga Gilboa v Uruguay (Communication 147/83) [1985] HRC
  • Melaku Fenta case

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Human Rights Council and Others v Ethiopia (Communication 445-13) [2015] ACHPR 5 (8 August 2015)
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.