Wakilii

Traore and Another v Republic of Mali (Application No. 020-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2025] AfCHPR 25 · 2025 Application 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 equality before the law and the right to a fair hearing arising from domestic administrative and judicial proceedings concerning police officer promotions
Decision
Application dismissed — no violation of rights found

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 held that Mali did not violate the applicants' rights to equality before the law or to a fair hearing. The Minister lawfully applied promotion criteria requiring qualifications held at the date the decree came into force; the applicants obtained their qualifications after that date. The Supreme Court was entitled to develop its jurisprudence and reverse earlier decisions, and the applicants failed to prove they served the judgment on the Ministry, leaving the appeal period open. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed — no violation of rights found

Facts

The applicants, Malian police officers, sought promotion to trainee superintendents under Decree No. 06-053/P-RM of 6 February 2006, which required officers to hold a master's degree on the date the decree came into force. The applicants obtained their qualifications in 2011 and 2012, after the decree's entry into force. The Minister of Internal Security excluded them from the promotion list. The applicants petitioned the Supreme Court's Administrative Section, which initially ordered regularisation of their status in December 2015. The General Directorate of State Litigation appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed its earlier jurisprudence in April 2016, holding that a civil servant cannot claim a right unlawfully granted to another. In August 2017, the Supreme Court annulled its earlier decisions and dismissed the applicants' appeal. The applicants then brought this application to the African Court alleging violations of equality before the law and the right to a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Minister of Internal Security violated the applicants' right to equality before the law by excluding them from the list of trainee police superintendents under Decree No. 06-053/P-RM of 6 February 2006.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court of Mali violated the applicants' right to equality before the law by reversing its earlier jurisprudence and dismissing their appeal for regularisation of their administrative status.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court violated the applicants' right to have their cause heard by accepting an appeal lodged outside the statutory time limit.

Orders

  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Declared the Application admissible.
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants' right to equality before the law and non-discrimination, protected by Article 3(1) of the Charter as read jointly with Article 26 of the ICCPR.
  • Held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants' right to have their cause heard, protected by Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter.
  • Dismissed the Applicants' prayers for reparations.
  • Ordered that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Equality Before the Law — Burden of Proof — Requirement to Demonstrate Discriminatory Treatment
It is incumbent on the party purporting to have been a victim of discriminatory treatment to provide proof thereof; vague assertions that a right has been violated are not sufficient.
Civil Service — Promotion Criteria — Application of Transitional Provisions
Where a decree sets promotion criteria requiring qualifications held at the date the decree comes into force, an administrative authority does not violate the principle of equality by excluding officers who obtained their qualifications after that date, even if other officers in similar circumstances were previously promoted.
Equality Before the Law — Judicial Reversal of Jurisprudence — Permissibility
The evolution of jurisprudence does not, in itself, conflict with the proper administration of justice; a supreme court is fully entitled to develop its jurisprudence and reverse earlier decisions where it provides reasons for the reversal, and such reversal does not constitute discriminatory treatment.
Civil Service Law — Unlawfully Granted Rights — No Accrued Right
It is a general principle of civil service law that a civil servant cannot claim a right unlawfully granted to another; the person who claims to have a right is obliged to prove it.
Right to a Fair Hearing — Service of Judgment — Effect on Appeal Period
Where an applicant fails to serve a judgment on the opposing party as required by procedural law, the time limit for appeal remains open, and a court does not violate the right to a fair hearing by accepting an appeal lodged after the statutory period would otherwise have expired.

Legislation cited (12)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 26
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • Law No. 02-056 of 16 December 2002 (Mali)
  • Decree No. 06-053-/P-RM of 6 February 2006 (Mali)
  • Law No. 10-034 of 12 July 2010 (Mali)
  • Organic Law No. 96-071/RM-AN of 16 December 1996 (Mali)
  • Law No. 046-2016 of 23 September 2016 (Mali)
  • Code of Civil, Commercial and Social Procedure Article 122 (Mali)
  • Decree No. 09-220/P-RM of 11 May 2009 (Mali)

Cases cited (19)

  • Broulaye Coulibaly et al, Judgment No. 186 of 17 April 2016
  • Armand Guéhi v United Republic of Tanzania (2018) 2 AfCLR 477
  • Nguza Viking and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (2018) 2 AfCLR 287
  • Kija Nestory v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 01/2018)
  • Niyonzima Augustine v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 058/2016)
  • Boubacar Sissoko and 74 Others v Republic of Mali (2020) 4 AfCLR 641
  • Lucien Ikili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (2019) 3 AfCLR 13
  • Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d'Ivoire (Communication 318/06)
  • John Mwita v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 044/2016)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (2016) 1 AfCLR 599
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (2015) 1 AfCLR 465
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (2018) 2 AfCLR 218
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (2014) 1 AfCLR 219
  • Micallef v Malta (Application No. 17056/06)
  • Tiékoro Sangaré and Others v Republic of Mali (Application No. 007/2019)
  • Werema Wakongo Werema and Werema v United Republic of Tanzania (2018)
  • Jebra Kambole v United Republic of Tanzania (2020) 4 AfCLR 466
  • Ibrahim Ben Mohamed Ben Ibrahim Belguith v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 017/2021)
  • Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania (2018) 2 AfCLR 446

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Traore and Another v Republic of Mali (Application No. 020-2018) [2025] AfCHPR 25 (26 June 2025)
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.