Arusha, Tanzania
Email: registrar@african-court.org
Website: www.african-court.org
Telephone: +255-272-510-510
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
Specifically, the Applicants alleged that the Respondent State has violated the rights
of detainees, prisoners and citizens residing abroad to participate in government
through Article 5(2)(c) of its Constitution, the National Elections Act (herein after
referred to as “NEA”), and the failure to affirmatively provide for mechanisms enabling
citizens residing abroad to vote.
In examining its jurisdiction, the Court noted that the Respondent State raised an
objection to material jurisdiction. The Respondent State averred first, that the alleged
violations fall within the jurisdiction of national courts; and, second, that the Court is
being called to act as a court of first instance given that the Applicants had not
approached domestic courts. The Applicants on their part submit that the Court cannot
be said to be acting as a court of instance by examining the present Application, given
the latter involves alleged violations rights protected by treaties to which the
Respondent State is a party.
Regarding the objection that it lacks jurisdiction because the alleged violations fall
strictly within the jurisdiction of national courts, the Court recalled its jurisprudence that
it is not precluded from exercising material jurisdiction because issues brought before
it had been adjudicated in domestic courts. The Court therefore held that its material
jurisdiction is established so long as it is called upon to determine whether domestic
proceedings were conducted in line with standards set out in the Charter and other
human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. As a consequence, the
Court dismissed the Respondent State’s objection that the Application related to
issues which fall within the jurisdiction of national courts.
The Court then considered the second limb of the objection to its material jurisdiction
based on it being asked to act as a court of first instance by examining allegations
made with respect to the alleged prohibition against prisoners, detainees (accused
persons) and citizens residing in diaspora from voting. In this regard, the Court
reiterated its jurisprudence that in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it had
material jurisdiction to consider applications filed before it, provided that the allege
2