Wakilii

Kone and Another v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 004-2024)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2024] AfCHPR 36 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for provisional measures before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Request for provisional measures dismissed; main application remains pending before the Court

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 dismissed the applicants' request for provisional measures to suspend their dismissal from the Malian judiciary. The Court held that while it had prima facie jurisdiction, the applicants failed to demonstrate the requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and irreparable harm under Article 27(2) of the Protocol. The Court found no causal link proven between alleged medical conditions and the dismissal, no imminent loss of property, and noted that domestic remedies were pending and that reinstatement remained possible, indicating the harm was not irreparable.

Outcome

Request for provisional measures dismissed; main application remains pending before the Court

Facts

The applicants, both Malian magistrates and trade union leaders, were dismissed from the judiciary following disciplinary proceedings before the High Judicial Council (HJC) in August and September 2023, confirmed by presidential decrees in October 2023. The first applicant had been Senior Advocate General of the Supreme Court and was dismissed after denouncing alleged human rights violations by the transitional government. Both applicants, as leaders of the Magistrates Trade Union, had challenged various government decisions and opposed the extension of military transition and constitutional changes affecting judicial independence. They alleged their dismissals were retaliatory and violated due process. They sought provisional measures to suspend the dismissal decisions and decrees, claiming extreme gravity and irreparable harm including loss of salary, inability to pay medical expenses and loan instalments, and risk of property seizure. The respondent State did not file a response to the provisional measures request.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the request for provisional measures.
  2. Whether the requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and prevention of irreparable harm under Article 27(2) of the Protocol are met to warrant the grant of provisional measures.
  3. Whether the applicants demonstrated that the dismissal decisions and decrees cause irreparable harm requiring immediate suspension.

Orders

  • Request for provisional measures dismissed.
  • Ruling is provisional and does not prejudge findings on jurisdiction, admissibility, or merits of the main application.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Prima Facie Jurisdiction
For provisional measures, the Court does not have to ensure that it has jurisdiction over the merits of the case, but only that it has prima facie jurisdiction.
Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Requirements under Article 27(2) of the Protocol
The Court may order provisional measures only in cases of extreme gravity or urgency and in order to prevent irreparable harm to persons. Urgency means that an irreparable and imminent risk is caused before the Court renders its decision. The risk must be real, not supposed or hypothetical, and must be a serious risk requiring immediate remedial action.
Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Burden of Proof
It is for the applicant seeking provisional measures to state them clearly and to provide evidence of urgency or extreme gravity and of the irreparable nature of the harm.
Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Irreparable Harm and Domestic Remedies
Where applicants have challenged the impugned decisions before domestic courts and seek reinstatement as part of their prayers for reparation on the merits, this is proof that the alleged prejudice is not irreparable, and provisional measures should not be granted where granting them would prejudge the merits of the case.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(2)
  • 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 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 6(1)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 7(1)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 16(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19(2)
  • ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Trade Unions, 1948)
  • Organic Law on the Supreme Court (Mali) Article 68
  • Code of Ethics annexed to Law No. 02-054 of 16 December 2002 on the status of Magistrates Article 19
  • Code of Ethics annexed to Law No. 02-054 of 16 December 2002 on the status of Magistrates Article 20

Cases cited (4)

  • Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2019)
  • Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 04/2020)
  • Sebastien Germain Marie Aikoue Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Application No. 062/2019)
  • Romaric Jesukpego Zinsou and Others v Republic of Benin (Application No. 008/2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kone and Another v Republic of Mali (Ruling) (Application No. 004-2024) [2024] AfCHPR 36 (20 November 2024)
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.