Wakilii

Woyome v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 001-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2019] AfCHPR 90 · 2019 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 the African Charter arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Ghana
Decision
Application dismissed — no violation of the African Charter 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 on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it had jurisdiction to examine alleged human rights violations arising from decisions of Ghana's Supreme Court, notwithstanding Ghana's sovereignty and the non-domestication of the Protocol. The Court found the application admissible, holding that pursuing a claim at the High Court to challenge a Supreme Court decision would have been an ineffective remedy, and that the applicant filed within a reasonable time given intervening criminal proceedings and a Commission of Inquiry. On the merits, the Court unanimously found no violation of the applicant's rights under Articles 2, 3, and 7 of the African Charter, holding that the Supreme Court's Review Bench acted within its constitutional jurisdiction, that the composition of the Review Bench (including judges who sat on the Ordinary Bench) did not cast doubt on its impartiality, and that Justice Dotse's remarks, though unfortunate, did not reveal bias sufficient to taint the entire Bench.

Outcome

Application dismissed — no violation of the African Charter found

Facts

Alfred Woyome, a Ghanaian businessman, claimed payment from the Government of Ghana for his role in raising funds for the construction of two stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations. After a consent judgment, he was paid GH₵ 51,283,480.59. The former Attorney General of Ghana, Martin Amidu, challenged the constitutionality of the underlying contracts before the Supreme Court. The Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court found the contracts unconstitutional but did not order Woyome to refund the money, directing instead that the matter concerning him be heard by the High Court. On review, the Review Bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the unconstitutionality and ordered Woyome to refund the money. Woyome then filed an application before the African Court alleging violations of his rights under the African Charter, specifically his rights to a fair hearing by a competent and impartial tribunal, non-discrimination, and equality before the law.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to hear an application alleging human rights violations arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Ghana.
  2. Whether the application was admissible, specifically whether local remedies had been exhausted and whether the application was filed within a reasonable time.
  3. Whether the applicant's right to be heard by a competent tribunal under Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter was violated when the Review Bench of the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction instead of referring the matter to the High Court.
  4. Whether the applicant's right to be tried by an impartial tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter was violated by the composition of the Review Bench (eight judges having sat on the Ordinary Bench) and by remarks made by Justice Dotse.
  5. Whether the applicant's rights to non-discrimination (Article 2) and equality before the law (Article 3) of the African Charter were violated.

Orders

  • Dismissed the objections on the jurisdiction of the Court.
  • Declared that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Dismissed the objections on the admissibility of the Application.
  • Declared that the Application is admissible.
  • Found that the Respondent State has not violated Article 2 of the Charter on the right to non-discrimination.
  • Found that the Respondent State has not violated Article 3 of the Charter on equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
  • Found that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter on the right to have one's cause heard by a competent tribunal.
  • Found that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter on the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal in respect to the composition of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court.
  • Found that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter in respect to the remarks made by Justice Dotse in his concurring opinion before the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court.
  • Rejected the reliefs sought by the Applicant.
  • Decided that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction of the African Court — Domestication of the Protocol — State Obligations under International Law
A State Party to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court cannot invoke the non-domestication of the Protocol to oust the jurisdiction of the African Court, as ratification and deposit of instruments signify the State's final will to be bound, and under general international law a State cannot invoke its domestic legislation to exempt itself from performing its treaty obligations.
Jurisdiction of the African Court — Review of National Court Decisions — Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, but this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in national courts to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the African Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.
Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Effectiveness of Remedies — Subordinate Court Review of Supreme Court Decisions
A remedy is effective if it can be pursued by the applicant without impediment and is capable of addressing the applicant's grievances. Where the alleged violation arises from a decision of the Supreme Court, requiring the applicant to file a claim at the High Court to challenge that decision would be an ineffective remedy, as it would be unreasonable to expect a subordinate court to call into question a decision of the highest court whose decisions are binding on it.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Assessment on a Case-by-Case Basis
The reasonableness of the time limit for filing an application before the African Court depends on the particular circumstances of each case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Where an applicant awaits the determination of related criminal proceedings and a Commission of Inquiry that could have dispensed with the need to file an application, the time spent awaiting those determinations is sufficient justification for delay in filing.
Right to a Fair Hearing — Competent Tribunal — Domestic Courts' Interpretation of Their Own Jurisdiction
The determination of whether a domestic court is competent to hear a matter depends on the legal system of the State concerned, and domestic courts have the power to interpret the laws and determine their jurisdiction. Where a Supreme Court exercises its review jurisdiction in accordance with the Constitution and there is no demonstration of arbitrariness or violation of specific legal procedures, the right to be heard by a competent tribunal is not violated.
Right to an Impartial Tribunal — Review Proceedings — Participation of Judges from the Original Bench
In jurisdictions having review procedures, it is common for review benches to involve judges who previously considered the matter. The mere fact that a judge or some of the judges participated in the review proceedings does not necessarily imply the absence of impartiality, provided the composition is in accordance with the Constitution and there is no evidence of preconceived bias or predisposition against the applicant.
Right to an Impartial Tribunal — Judicial Remarks — Distinction between Opinion and Bias
A judge's personal values, philosophy, or beliefs about the law may not constitute bias. Opinion, which is acceptable, should be distinguished from bias, which is unacceptable. The impartiality of a judge is presumed, and undisputable evidence is required to refute this presumption. Judicial remarks, though unfortunate and beyond appropriate judicial comment, do not reveal bias if they are based on an assessment of the facts and do not give an impression of preconceived opinions, and where a single judge's remarks cannot be considered sufficient to taint the entire bench.

Legislation cited (17)

  • 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 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 2
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 33
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 127
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 128
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 129
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 130
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 133
  • Constitution of Republic of Ghana Article 181
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1986 Article 27

Cases cited (19)

  • Frank David Omary v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2012)
  • Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Application No. 005/2015)
  • APDF and IHRDA v Republic of Mali (Application No. 046/2016)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2015)
  • Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 025/2016)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 001/2013)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 010/2015)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (Application No. 003/2014)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (2000) AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000)
  • Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Pulp Mills (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep
  • Ghana Bar Association and Others v Attorney General and Others (J1/26/2015) [2016] GHASC
  • Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre and Rev Christopher Mtikila v Tanzania (Application No. 011/2011)
  • Werema Wangoko Werema and Waisiri Wangoko Werema v. Tanzania
  • Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221
  • Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada 2003 231 DLR (4th) 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Woyome v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 001-2017) [2019] AfCHPR 90 (28 June 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.