Wakilii

Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Ruling) (Application No. 016-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 7 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging mandatory death penalty following exhaustion of domestic remedies and UN Human Rights Committee proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed as inadmissible; applicant remains on death row in Ghana

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 held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application but declared it inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The Court found that the matter had been settled by the UN Human Rights Committee, which had issued Views on the same issues between the same parties. The Court held that non-implementation of the HRC's Views does not mean the matter remains unsettled, and that the admissibility bar applies to prevent states being sued twice for the same alleged human rights violations.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible; applicant remains on death row in Ghana

Facts

Dexter Eddie Johnson, a dual Ghanaian-British national, was convicted of murder on 18 June 2008 by the Fast Track High Court in Accra and sentenced to mandatory death. His appeals to the Court of Appeal (dismissed 16 July 2009) and Supreme Court (dismissed 16 March 2011) were unsuccessful. He made two clemency petitions in 2011-2012, then filed a communication with the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2012. On 27 March 2014, the HRC found that the mandatory death penalty violated Article 6(1) of the ICCPR and ordered Ghana to commute his sentence. Ghana did not implement the HRC's Views. Johnson then filed this application with the African Court on 26 May 2017, alleging violations of the African Charter and other human rights instruments arising from the mandatory death penalty.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application.
  2. Whether the application is admissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter, given that the same matter was previously considered by the UN Human Rights Committee.
  3. Whether a matter is 'settled' within the meaning of Article 56(7) when a decision has been rendered by another international body but not implemented by the respondent state.

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  • Declared that the Application is inadmissible.
  • Ordered that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Article 56(7) of the African Charter — Non Bis in Idem Principle
An application is inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter if it deals with a case that has been settled by another international or regional mechanism, even where the decision of that mechanism has not been implemented by the respondent state.
Admissibility — Settlement of Cases — Three Conditions
For a matter to be considered 'settled' under Article 56(7) of the African Charter, three conditions must converge: identity of the parties, identity of the applications or their supplementary or alternative nature, and the existence of a first decision on the merits.
Admissibility — Principles of the Charter of the United Nations
Where the principles contained in provisions of the ICCPR are identical to principles in the African Charter, a decision by the UN Human Rights Committee based on the ICCPR constitutes settlement in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 56(7) of the African Charter.
Admissibility — Non Bis in Idem — Rationale
The rationale behind Article 56(7) of the African Charter is to prevent states from being asked to account more than once in respect of the same alleged violations of human rights, reflecting the non bis in idem rule and the res judicata status of judgments issued by international and regional tribunals.
Admissibility — Cumulative Conditions
The conditions of admissibility under Article 56 of the African Charter are cumulative; when one condition is not met, the entire application cannot be considered admissible.
Jurisdiction — Temporal Jurisdiction — Continuing Violations
The African Court has temporal jurisdiction over alleged violations that are continuous in nature, such as where an applicant remains sentenced on the basis of what is alleged not to be in line with the provisions of the African Charter and other human rights instruments.

Legislation cited (19)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • 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 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(3)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(5)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 10
  • Constitution of Ghana Article 13(1)
  • Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) s.46

Cases cited (16)

  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi & Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Peter Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Nguza Viking and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2015)
  • Jean-Claude Roger Gombert v Cote d Ivoire (Application No. 038/2016)
  • Urban Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 003/2011)
  • Communication No. 2117/2012 Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana, 27 March 2014
  • ACHPR Communication 409/12, Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v. Angola and thirteen Others § 112
  • EACJ Reference No 1/2007 James Katabazi et al v. Secretary General of the East African Community and Another (2007) AHRLR 119 § 30-32
  • IACHR Application 7920, Judgment of 29 July 1988, Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras CIADH §.24(4)
  • Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia-and-Montenegro) Judgment of 26 February 2007, lCJ., Collection 2007, p.43
  • ACHPR Communication 266/03, Kevin Mgwanga Gunme and others v Cameroon, § 86
  • ACHPR Communication 260/02 Bakweri Land Claims v Cameroon, § 52
  • ACHPR, Communication 277/2003, Spilg and others v. Botswana, § 96
  • ACHPR, Communication 334/06 Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v Egypt, § 80

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Ruling) (Application No. 016-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 7 (28 March 2019)
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.