Wakilii

Kenyatta and Another (represented by Innocence Project Africa) v Republic of Kenya (Communication 464-14)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2014] ACHPR 5 · 2014 Communication Not Seized 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
Decision
Communication not seized by the Commission due to non-compliance with admissibility requirements

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 on Human and Peoples' Rights declined to seize the Communication because it contained disparaging and insulting language in contravention of Article 56(3) of the African Charter, failed to demonstrate exhaustion of domestic remedies, failed to show a link between alleged violations and the facts complained of, and lacked consent signatures from the victims.

Outcome

Communication not seized by the Commission due to non-compliance with admissibility requirements

Facts

Innocence Project Africa filed a communication on behalf of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, President and Deputy President of Kenya, alleging that Kenya violated their rights under the African Charter by cooperating with the International Criminal Court in their prosecution for post-2007 election violence. The Author alleged Kenya failed to establish an independent inquiry, failed to protect its citizens' constitutional rights, and violated AU decisions on relations with the ICC. The Author claimed the ICC investigation was a fishing expedition based on prejudicial information from private individuals, and that Kenya aided the ICC in violating the victims' rights to fair trial by a jury of their peers.

Issues

  1. Whether the Communication complied with Article 56 of the African Charter on admissibility requirements.
  2. Whether the Communication fulfilled the criteria for seizure under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
  3. Whether the Communication contained disparaging and insulting language in contravention of Article 56(3) of the African Charter.
  4. Whether the Author demonstrated exhaustion of domestic remedies or grounds for their unavailability.

Orders

  • The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights decides not to be seized of this Communication.
  • Communication does not comply with Article 56 of the African Charter.
  • Communication does not fulfil the criteria for seizure provided under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

African Commission Procedure — Admissibility — Disparaging and Insulting Language
A communication containing disparaging and insulting language such as 'sickening', 'charade', 'fishing expedition', and 'demonization' contravenes Article 56(3) of the African Charter and renders the communication inadmissible.
African Commission Procedure — Admissibility — Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
An author must indicate steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies or provide grounds alleging the impossibility or unavailability of such remedies under Rule 93(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure; failure to do so renders the communication inadmissible.
African Commission Procedure — Admissibility — Prima Facie Violation
An author must show a link between the Articles of the African Charter allegedly violated and the account of the act or situation complained of to reveal a prima facie violation; failure to establish this link renders the communication inadmissible.
African Commission Procedure — Admissibility — Consent of Victims
For a communication of a public interest nature filed by a representative on behalf of named victims, consent of the victims should be sought and their signatures placed on the communication prior to submission to the Secretariat.

Legislation cited (15)

  • 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 12
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 20(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28
  • 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(3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kenyatta and Another (represented by Innocence Project Africa) v Republic of Kenya (Communication 464-14) [2014] ACHPR 5 (14 March 2014)
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.