THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

The African Court on Human & Peoples’ Rights should be one of the most important institutions in Africa. A new strategy aims to realise this dream

The invitation to be part of a training team at the African Court on Human & Peoples’ Rights was irresistible. The court is periodically in the news, but few people know much about it. Here was a chance to learn more myself.

We flew into Tanzania’s tiny Kilimanjaro airport last week and then spent more than an hour driving the remaining 52km to Arusha, where the court is housed in property on loan from Tanzania National Parks, surrounded by a wooded area from which cuckoos called most of the day.

It sounds (and is) picturesque, but the location also indicates one of the institution’s many problems. The court was promised its own home with an appropriate building and infrastructure.

But more than 12 years since the forum was established, nothing has materialised.

In 2012, UK lawyer

Oliver Windridge interviewed the court’s registrar,

Robert Eno. When asked where the court would be in five years’ time, Eno said it would be one of the most important institutions in Africa. It would be unrecognisable, and “in a different place”.

More than five years on, none of this has come to pass. I asked Eno what he now considers the court’s most pressing problem. Though resources, budget and staff issues are challenges, he says, the court’s single biggest issue is ensuring that states comply with its judgments. Judges have ordered certain actions to be taken by states, yet these decisions have often been ignored by the countries concerned, and there appears to be no way to enforce the court’s orders.

Bear that comment in mind when next you hear discussion about whether the court, by adding an extra chamber to handle international crimes, could become an alternative forum to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in

The Hague.

Proper support by African states for the Arusha court, even in its present form, is hopelessly inadequate. Of the AU’S 55 member states, only 30 — including SA — have ratified the protocol establishing the court. Just eight of these have agreed that the court may hear cases brought by individuals and NGOS from their countries. To my shame, SA is not among them.

AU members apparently have neither the funds to provide the court with the premises it needs, nor the political will to sign on to the court, even in its present form, so that its jurisdiction may stretch across the continent. Even the will to implement the court’s decisions is lacking. And there is no reason to expect anything would change if the court were to develop into a far larger and more expensive forum that could also handle international crimes.

However, at the moment the court has other issues on its mind: deputy registrar Nouhou Madani Diallo says the institution is “not very well known” by African governments and is known even less by the people, despite the fact that its judgments are supposed to be of help to them.

Reaching the public

Last week’s training was part of an effort to improve that situation. Key players at the court had decided that, to raise its profile, the court should issue media summaries as well as the full text of judgments, something it has not done before. The training was directed at legal staff who would write these summaries, taking them through international best practice in terms of the style of document that could be issued. As Diallo commented at the start of the course, providing short, simple summaries of decisions would be one of the quickest ways in which to make the court’s work known to the media, potential litigants and human rights NGOS. Despite all the obstacles, this is a forum with immense potential. If last week’s training helps improve the court’s reach, it would be well worth the effort.

The court’s biggest challenge is ensuring states comply with its judgments