Wakilii

Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v Kingdom of Swaziland (Communication 414-12)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2013] ACHPR 122 · 2013 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 alleging violations of the African Charter arising from the ban on political parties in Swaziland
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 complainant submitted the communication 34 months after the Supreme Court of Swaziland delivered judgment in May 2009, without providing any explanation for the delay. The Commission found this interval unreasonable and no compelling reason was shown to justify the late submission.

Outcome

Communication dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) filed a communication on 24 April 2012 alleging that Swaziland violated the African Charter by banning political parties from participating in elections since 12 April 1973. The complainant stated that King Sobhuza II repealed the 1968 Independence Constitution through a royal proclamation in 1973, assumed supreme authority, and banned political activity. The 2005 Constitution was adopted without the participation of banned political organisations. The Supreme Court of Swaziland in Jan Sithole v Government of Swaziland (May 2009) upheld the ban on political parties participating in elections. The complainant submitted the communication to the African Commission 34 months after that judgment without explaining the delay. The respondent state failed to submit observations on admissibility despite multiple opportunities.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies were exhausted as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Reasonable Time for Submission — Article 56(6) African Charter
A communication submitted 34 months after the exhaustion of local remedies, without any explanation for the delay, does not meet the requirement of submission within a reasonable period under Article 56(6) of the African Charter.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Supreme Court as Final Jurisdiction
Where the Supreme Court, being the highest court in the state, has delivered judgment on the subject matter of a communication, local remedies are deemed exhausted and no further remedies remain to be pursued.
Admissibility — Interpretation of Reasonable Period — Case-by-Case Basis
Unlike the American and European human rights conventions which specify six months as the reasonable period for submission after exhaustion of local remedies, the African Charter contains no such fixed period and the Commission interprets reasonableness on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration its duty to promote and protect human rights.
Procedure — State's Failure to Respond — Commission's Duty to Proceed
Where a respondent state fails to submit observations on admissibility despite being given opportunities to do so, the African Commission must proceed with consideration of the communication on the basis of the complainant's submissions and information at its disposal.

Legislation cited (18)

  • 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 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 11
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 20
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 45
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 60
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 61
  • Swaziland Independence Order Act No. 50 of 1968
  • Swaziland Constitution 2005 s.79
  • King's Proclamation to the Nation of 12 April 1973
  • Suppression of Terrorism Act No. 3 of 2008
  • Decree No. 2 of 1996 s.4

Cases cited (13)

  • Ray Gwebu and Lucky Nhlanhla Bhembe v The King (Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2000)
  • Jan Sithole N.O. v The Swaziland Government (Appeal No. 35 of 2007)
  • Lawyers for Human Rights v Swaziland, paragraph 63
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and others v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90)
  • Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Republic of Angola (Communication 292/04)
  • Social and Economic Rights Action Center v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Communication 155/96)
  • Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l'Homme and others v Republic of Angola (Communication 159/96)
  • Alfred Cudjoe v Ghana (Communication 221/98)
  • Good v Botswana (Communication 313/05)
  • Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan (Communication 296/05)
  • Interights and others v Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Communication 242/01)
  • Michael Mujuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308/05)
  • Jan Sithole N.O. v The Government of Swaziland (21 May 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v Kingdom of Swaziland (Communication 414-12) [2013] ACHPR 122 (24 July 2013)
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.