Wakilii

Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania (Communication 333 of 2006)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2010] ACHPR 107 · 2010 Communication Inadmissible AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission challenging a Tanzanian Court of Appeal decision upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty
Decision
Communication dismissed as inadmissible due to unreasonable delay in submission

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 Commission held that an eleven-year delay between the Court of Appeal judgment and submission of the communication was unreasonable where the complainants provided no explanation for the delay. The Commission found that all other admissibility requirements under Article 56 had been satisfied.

Outcome

Communication dismissed as inadmissible due to unreasonable delay in submission

Facts

On 22 June 1994, the High Court of Tanzania in R v Mbushuu found the death penalty unconstitutional and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. The Tanzanian Government appealed, and on 30 January 1995, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision, holding that the death penalty was constitutional and saved by claw-back clauses in the Constitution. The Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and member organisations submitted a communication to the African Commission on 17 November 2006, alleging that the Court of Appeal decision violated Article 4 of the African Charter. Tanzania ratified the African Charter on 18 February 1984. The communication was submitted eleven years after the Court of Appeal judgment.

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 communication was compatible with the African Charter under Article 56(2).
  3. Whether local remedies had been exhausted under Article 56(5).
  4. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period of time under Article 56(6).

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for non-compliance with Article 56(6) of the African Charter.
  • Decision to be transmitted to the parties in accordance with Rule 119(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
  • Decision to be published in the 28th Activity Report.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Reasonable Time Requirement — Article 56(6) African Charter
A communication submitted to the African Commission eleven years after exhaustion of local remedies, without any explanation for the delay, does not comply with the requirement under Article 56(6) of the African Charter that communications be submitted within a reasonable period of time.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Compatibility with the Charter — Article 56(2)
Under Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the Commission need only determine whether there is prima facie evidence of a violation of rights guaranteed by the Charter; it is not mandatory for a complainant to cite all specific provisions allegedly violated, as the extent of violations is determined at the merits stage.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Meaning of Local Remedies — Article 56(5)
The requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter refers to ordinary judicial remedies of common law that exist in jurisdictions and are normally accessible to people seeking justice; where a matter has been considered and decided by the highest court in a State, local remedies are exhausted.
Human Rights — Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Assessment Factors
The African Charter does not specify what constitutes a reasonable time under Article 56(6); the Commission determines reasonableness based on the context and characteristics of each case, and where there is a good and compelling reason for delay, the Commission has a responsibility to give the complainant an opportunity to be heard.

Legislation cited (14)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(6)(d)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 13(6)(e)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 30(2)(c)
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Article 30(4)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (Cap 3 R.E. 2002) Section 4
  • Penal Code Cap 16 Section 196
  • Penal Code Cap 16 Section 198
  • Constitutive Act of the OAU
  • Constitutive Act of the AU
  • American Convention on Human Rights Article 46(1)(b)
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 26

Cases cited (6)

  • R v. Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje and Kalai Sangula
  • Mouvement des réfugiés mauritaniens au Sénégal v Senegal (Communication 162/97)
  • Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308/05)
  • Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan (Communication 310/05)
  • Mr Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (Communication 307/2005)
  • INTERIGHTS and others v Mauritania (Communication 242/2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania (Communication 333 of 2006) [2010] ACHPR 107 (26 May 2010)
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.