Wakilii

Le Forum Pour Le Reinforcement De La Societe Civile and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another (Appeal No.2 of 2020)

East African Court of Justice · [2021] EACJ 35 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice challenging dismissal of a reference alleging violation of the EAC Treaty by the banning of civil society organizations in Burundi
Decision
Appeal dismissed; banning of civil society organizations upheld as lawful under Burundian law and consistent with EAC Treaty

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 East African Court of Justice Appellate Division dismissed an appeal by five Burundian civil society organizations challenging the banning of their activities by the Burundian Minister of Interior. The Court held that although the Trial Court erred in interpreting Article 30(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1/11 of 1992 by mistaking 'competent court' for 'competent jurisdiction', the Minister nonetheless had lawful authority under Article 30(2) and Article 36 to ban the organizations as a safeguard measure following findings that they breached public order during insurrections. The banning order did not violate the EAC Treaty provisions on good governance.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; banning of civil society organizations upheld as lawful under Burundian law and consistent with EAC Treaty

Facts

Five Burundian civil society organizations were banned from operating following events in Burundi during 2015-2016, including insurrections and an abortive coup d'état. The Burundi Prosecutor General froze their bank accounts. On 23 November 2015, the Minister of Interior suspended their activities by Ministerial Order No. 530/1597. Eleven months later, on 19 October 2016, the Minister issued Order No. 530/1922 banning their activities. The organizations were not given an opportunity to make representations before either the suspension or the ban. A Commission of Inquiry established by the Prosecutor General found that the organizations had participated in and incited the insurrectional movement. The organizations challenged the ban in the First Instance Division, which dismissed their reference. They appealed to the Appellate Division.

Issues

  1. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law and committed procedural irregularity by finding that there was no cause of action against the Secretary General of the EAC.
  2. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law and committed procedural irregularities by finding that the Ministerial Order No. 530/1922 of 19 October 2016 was issued in compliance with Burundian Law and accordingly does not infringe Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 127(3) & (4) of the EAC Treaty.
  3. Whether the Appellants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Ministerial Powers — Safeguard Measures — Banning of Civil Society Organizations
Under Article 30(2) and Article 36 of Burundi Presidential Decree No. 1/11 of 18 April 1992, the Minister in Charge of Interior has competence to order safeguard measures, including banning civil society organizations, where there is infringement of public order, without resort to a court.
Statutory Interpretation — Translation Errors — French to English — Effect on Meaning
Where a statute is drafted in French and translated into English, a court may be misled by translation errors. The French term 'juridiction compétente' means 'competent court' or 'court of competent jurisdiction', not 'competent jurisdiction' in the sense of administrative authority.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Rebuttal of Allegations — Sufficiency of Evidence
Where a respondent alleges that an applicant breached public order and provides affidavit evidence to that effect, the evidential burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the allegation with tangible evidence. General denials without supporting evidence are insufficient to discharge that burden.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Appeal — Notice Requirements — Consent of Respondent
An appellant may withdraw an appeal against a respondent by filing a notice under Rule 105(1) of the Court Rules. Where the respondent consents to the withdrawal despite not being served with the notice as required by Rule 105(2), the Court may exercise its inherent powers under Rule 4 to accept the withdrawal in the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Errors of Law — Procedural Irregularities
Under Article 35(A) of the EAC Treaty and Rule 86 of the Court Rules, an appeal may be brought on three grounds only: point of law, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularity. A court commits a procedural irregularity when it acts irregularly in the conduct of proceedings leading to denial or failure of due process, such as by irregularly admitting or denying evidence, denying a party a hearing, or ignoring a party's pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Consideration of Evidence — Affidavits — Duty to Refer
A trial court does not commit a procedural irregularity by failing to quote affidavits verbatim in its judgment where the substance of the affidavit evidence is reflected in the judgment and the court has considered the evidence in reaching its findings.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Translation Challenges
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under Rule 127(1) of the Court Rules, the court has discretion to order otherwise for good reason. Where there have been translation challenges at trial that affected the proceedings, it may be just and equitable to order each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 3(3)(b)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 14(3)(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 16
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(A)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 127
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 127(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 127(4)
  • Common Market Protocol Article 15(1)
  • Presidential Decree No. 1/11 of 18 April 1992 (Burundi) Article 30
  • Presidential Decree No. 1/11 of 18 April 1992 (Burundi) Article 36
  • Presidential Decree No. 1/11 of 18 April 1992 (Burundi) Article 38
  • African Charter on Human and People's Rights Article 14

Cases cited (7)

  • Simon Peter Ochieng v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal No. 4 of 2015)
  • Angela Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community (Application No. 4 of 2015)
  • Trevor Price & Another v Raymond Kelsal [1957] E.A. 752
  • Wynn Jones Mbwambo v Waadoa Petro Aaron (1966) E.A. 241
  • Attorney General of Rwanda v Trade Union Centre Ltd (U.T.C.) & 3 Others (Reference No. 10 of 2013)
  • Attorney General of Burundi v Secretary General East African Community & Others (Reference No. 2 of 2018)
  • East African Civil Society Organization Forum v Attorney General of Burundi & 2 Others (Reference No. 2 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Le Forum Pour Le Reinforcement De La Societe Civile and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi and Another (Appeal No.2 of 2020) [2021] EACJ 35 (19 November 2021)
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.