Wakilii

Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308 of 2005)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2008] ACHPR 95 · 2008 Communication Inadmissible 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 human rights violations by Zimbabwe following judicial decisions in favour of a newspaper group
Decision
Communication dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to submit within a reasonable time

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 Articles 56(5) and 56(6) of the African Charter. The Commission held that the complainant failed to demonstrate that he left Zimbabwe involuntarily or that local remedies were unavailable to him, as Zimbabwean law permits access to courts through legal representatives without physical presence. The Commission further held that the complainant's submission 22 months after the alleged violations was beyond a reasonable period, and that the reasons advanced for the delay were not sufficiently compelling.

Outcome

Communication dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to submit within a reasonable time

Facts

Michael Majuru, a Zimbabwean judge presiding over the Administrative Court, ruled in favour of the Associated Newspaper Group of Zimbabwe (ANZ) in a case challenging a government ban on two newspapers. Following his decision in September 2003, Majuru alleged that he was subjected to pressure, intimidation and threats by the Minister of Justice and suspected Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operatives. He claimed he was instructed to rule against ANZ, offered bribes, placed under surveillance, and threatened with arrest. Fearing for his safety, Majuru went into hiding in December 2003 and fled to South Africa on 9 December 2003, where he applied for and was granted asylum. He submitted a communication to the African Commission in November 2005, alleging violations of multiple articles of the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication complied with the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the African Commission had competence rationae materiae and rationae personae to examine the communication.
  3. Whether the communication was compatible with the African Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union.
  4. Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies before bringing the communication to the Commission.
  5. Whether local remedies were available, effective and sufficient to the complainant after he fled Zimbabwe.
  6. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56.6 of the Charter.

Orders

  • Communication 308/05 declared inadmissible.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies
A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, effective if it offers a prospect of success, and sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. Where a complainant fails to establish that he left his country involuntarily and where domestic law permits access to courts through legal representatives without physical presence, local remedies are considered available and must be exhausted.
Admissibility — Burden of Proof on Exhaustion of Local Remedies
It is incumbent on the complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies. It is not enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of domestic remedies due to isolated incidents. Mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or the prospect of financial costs involved do not absolve the complainant from pursuing such remedies.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time for Submission of Communications
Although the African Charter does not define what constitutes a reasonable period for submitting communications after exhaustion of local remedies, the Commission may draw guidance from other regional human rights instruments which set six months as the standard. Each case must be treated on its own merit, and where there is good and compelling reason why a complainant could not submit on time, the Commission may examine the complaint to ensure fairness and justice.
Admissibility — Competence Rationae Materiae and Rationae Personae
The African Commission has competence rationae materiae to examine a communication where it raises material elements which may constitute human rights violations protected under the Charter. The Commission has competence rationae personae where the communication identifies an individual author whose rights the respondent State is committed to respecting and protecting, and where the respondent State is a party to the African Charter.
Admissibility — Compatibility with the Charter
For a communication to be compatible with the African Charter, it must raise a prima facie violation of human rights protected under the Charter. Complainants need not specify which articles of the Charter have been violated, or even which right is being invoked, so long as they have raised the substance of the issue in question.

Legislation cited (21)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • 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
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe Section 24
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe Section 79
  • Administrative Court Act
  • State Liabilities Act Section 6
  • High Court Act
  • Supreme Court Act
  • Public Order and Security Act Section 5
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 26
  • Inter-American Convention on Human Rights

Cases cited (18)

  • Communication 71/92
  • Communication 147/95 and 149/96
  • Communication 215/98
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93)
  • Commission nationale des droits de l'Homme et libertés v Chad (Communication 74/92)
  • Jean Y Degli (on behalf of N Bikagni) v Togo (Communication 83/92)
  • Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana (Communication 103/93)
  • Rights International (on behalf of Charles Baridorn Wiwa) v Nigeria (Communication 215/98)
  • Jawara v The Gambia
  • Gabriel Shumba v Republic of Zimbabwe (Communication 288/04)
  • Article 19 v Eritrea
  • Nos. 220/1987, T.K v France ; 222/1987, M.K. v France ; 306/1988, J.G. v The Netherlands
  • Communication No. 560/1993, A v Australia
  • L Emil Kaaber v Iceland, Communication no. 674/1995
  • Ati Antoine Randolph v. Togo, Communication No. 910/2000
  • Earl Spencer and Countess Spencer v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 28851/95, 28852/95
  • Commercial Farmers Union
  • Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto cases

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308 of 2005) [2008] ACHPR 95 (24 November 2008)
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.