Wakilii

Mango and Others v Tanzania (Application No. 008-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 17 · 2019 Application Partly Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of rights arising from exercise of presidential prerogative of mercy and legality of sentences for armed robbery
Decision
Application inadmissible on main claims; admissible but dismissed on merits regarding sentence legality challenge

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 held that it had jurisdiction but declared the Application inadmissible in relation to all Applicants' claims concerning the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Application was admissible only in respect of the First and Seventh Applicants' challenge to the legality of their thirty-year sentences for armed robbery. On the merits, the Court found no violation of the right to fair trial, holding that the thirty-year sentence was in accordance with applicable Tanzanian law since 1994.

Outcome

Application inadmissible on main claims; admissible but dismissed on merits regarding sentence legality challenge

Facts

Seven Tanzanian nationals serving long-term prison sentences filed a joint application to the African Court. The First and Seventh Applicants were convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment in 2004 and 2002 respectively. The remaining five Applicants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death between 1983 and 1999, with their sentences later commuted to life imprisonment. All Applicants alleged discrimination in the implementation of Tanzania's presidential prerogative of mercy, claiming that prisoners serving long-term sentences were systematically excluded from pardons. The First and Seventh Applicants additionally challenged the legality of their thirty-year sentences, arguing the penalty was heavier than that in force when their offences were committed. All Applicants had appealed their original convictions to Tanzania's Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals, but none had filed constitutional petitions challenging the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or related legislation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  2. Whether the Application is admissible, particularly whether the Applicants exhausted local remedies.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicants' rights to equality and non-discrimination through the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy.
  4. Whether the sentences of thirty years imprisonment imposed on the First and Seventh Applicants for armed robbery violated their right to fair trial under Article 7(2) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Objections on lack of jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declared it has jurisdiction.
  • Application declared inadmissible in relation to all Applicants for failure to exhaust local remedies regarding the presidential prerogative of mercy claims.
  • Application declared admissible in respect of the First and Seventh Applicants' challenge to the legality of their sentences for armed robbery.
  • Respondent State found not to have violated the First and Seventh Applicants' right to fair trial under Article 7(2) of the Charter by reason of their sentences for armed robbery.
  • Prayer for reparations dismissed.
  • Each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Petitions
An applicant alleging violation of rights by the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy must exhaust available local remedies, including filing a constitutional petition under domestic law, before approaching an international human rights court. It is not open to an applicant to dismiss available domestic remedies without attempting to activate them on the ground that domestic courts are not independent or fair.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
A constitutional petition, as framed in Tanzania's legal system, is an extraordinary remedy that an applicant need not exhaust before approaching the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights where the applicant has already appealed to the highest domestic court on matters implicating fair trial rights.
Sentencing — Armed Robbery — Minimum Sentences
A sentence of thirty years imprisonment for armed robbery is in accordance with Tanzanian law where thirty years has been the minimum legal sentence for that offence since 1994, regardless of when the offence was committed, and does not violate the right to fair trial under Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Legislation cited (41)

  • 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 7(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(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)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(1)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(2)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(3)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(4)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(5)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(6)(c)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 45
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 64(5)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 107A(2)(a)
  • Prisons Act 1967 s.51
  • Prison Standing Orders s.445
  • Prison Standing Orders s.446
  • Minimum Sentences Act s.4(c)
  • Minimum Sentences Act s.5(a)
  • Penal Code s.285
  • Penal Code s.286
  • Penal Code s.287A
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act
  • Parole Act
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 7
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 8
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 10

Cases cited (10)

  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 024/2015)
  • Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2015)
  • Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2015)
  • Thobias Mang'ara Mango and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2015)
  • Diakite Couple v Republic of Mali (Application No. 009/2016)
  • Dexter Johnson v Ghana (Application No. 016/2017)
  • Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 053/2016)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Christopher Jonas v Tanzania (Application No. 011/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mango and Others v Tanzania (Application No. 008-2015) [2019] AfCHPR 17 (26 September 2019)
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.