409/12 Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John
Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v Angola and
Thirteen Others
Summary of the Complaint
1. The Communication was originally submitted by Mr. Norman Tjombe (the Complainant) on behalf of Mr.
Luke Munyandu Tembani and Mr. Benjamin John Freeth (the Victims) against the Republic of Angola (First
Respondent), the Republic of Botswana (Second Respondent), the Democratic Republic of Congo (Third
Respondent), the Kingdom of Lesotho (Fourth Respondent), the Republic of Malawi (Fifth Respondent), the
Republic of Mauritius (Sixth Respondent), the Republic of Mozambique (Seventh Respondent), the
Republic of Namibia (Eight Respondent), the Republic of Seychelles (Ninth Respondent), the Republic of
South Africa (Tenth Respondent), the Kingdom of Swaziland (Eleventh Respondent), the United Republic
of Tanzania (Twelfth Respondent), the Republic of Zambia (Thirteenth Respondent) and the Republic of
Zimbabwe (Fourteenth Respondent) (collectively the Respondent States) as well as the Summit of Heads
of State of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Council of Ministers of SADC
(SADC Council).
2. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) however became seized of,
and has considered this Communication against the fourteen (14) named Respondent States in their
capacities as State Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter).1
3. By virtue of affidavits deposed to by the Victims, supported by various evidentiary documents (altogether
comprising the Communication), the Complainant alleges that the First Victim, a Zimbabwean, had
acquired a registered title to agricultural land in 1995, in which he invested considerable resources on
farming facilities, and that he has now been deprived of his title and forced to leave the same, consequent
upon an executive action by the Government of Zimbabwe. This matter was taken to the Tribunal of the
SADC (the Tribunal), which made a ruling in favour of the First Victim, upholding the latter's contention that
the deprivation of his land was in conflict with Zimbabwe's Treaty obligations and hence in violation of
international law.2
4. The Complainant submits that the judgement of the Tribunal has not been complied with by Zimbabwe,
and that this has been the case with other judgements handed down by the Tribunal against Zimbabwe,
including the award in favour of what has now been termed the Campbell applicants3 , which was issued by
the Tribunal in the case of Mike Campbell (PVT) Limited and Others v. The Republic of Zimbabwe4
(the Campbell Case). The Second Victim was one of the Campbell Applicants, who now acts on behalf of
the Campbell applicants5 in the present Communication.
5. The Complainant also states that a series of further applications were made by the Victims to the
Tribunal, seeking a referral of Zimbabwe's defiance to the Summit of Heads of State of the SADC (SADC
Summit) for measures to be taken against Zimbabwe as a member State and that these were also granted,
but similarly defied.
6. The Complainant alleges that by a decision taken by the SADC Summit, comprising the Respondent
States as decision-makers, between 16 to 17 August 2010 (the "First Decision"), the Tribunal has now
been suspended and its decisions cannot be enforced. The Victims sought to address this issue of
suspension by filing an application to the Tribunal in March 2011, seeking a declaration inter alia that the
SADC Summit was bound to support and facilitate the continued functioning of the Tribunal;6 however, the
Tribunal could/has not been convened to deal with these matters because it is suspended by virtue of a
further decision (the "Second Decision") taken by the SADC Summit (and allegedly by implication, the
Respondent States) on 20 May 2011.7
7. The Complainant asserts that the Second Decision perpetuates the indefinite paralysis of the Tribunal by
failing to ensure the appointment of judges, and reiterating the moratorium on receiving any new cases or
hearings by the Tribunal until the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal has been reviewed and approved. It is
also alleged that the Second Decision did not take into account the First Decision of the SADC Summit
which had left open, enforcement applications and ancillary applications to matters already heard, and
pending applications.
8. The Complainant avers that the SADC Summit's decision to suspend the Tribunal was motivated by
1