African Human Rights CLA 2.0

th 39. By Note Verbale of 9 February 2009, the Secretariat granted the extension of time requested by the Respondent State. th 40. By letter of 10 February 2009, the Complainant was informed of the extension of time granted to the Respondent State. th 41. By a Note Verbale dated 27 March 2009, the Secretariat invited the Respondent State to forward its further submissions on the merits. th 42. On 7 November 2009, the Respondent State made a complaint regarding the procedures followed by the Secretariat in inviting the parties to make further submissions on the merits. th 43. On 8 April 2009, the Respondent State made further submissions objecting against the Commission’s approach and application of the procedure laid down in Rule 119(2) [and] (3) of [its] Rules [of] Procedure and requested the Commission to review its ruling. th 44. By Note Verbale dated 14 April 2009, the Secretariat notified the Respondent State of the th Commission’s decision to take a decision on the merits during its 45 Ordinary Session and further th invited the State to make its submissions no later than 30 April 2009. th 45. By a Note Verbale of 16 April 2009, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State that the th latter’s concerns and issues will be tabled before the Commission during its 45 Ordinary Session. th 46. By a letter and Note Verbale of 7 December 2009, the Complainants and Respondent State were informed of the Commission’s decision to defer consideration of the communication to its th 47 Ordinary Session. Law Admissibility Complainants’ submission 47. The Complainants submit that the requirements set in Article 56 of the African Charter have been satisfied, as the author of the communication has been identified and relevant details of the Communication have been provided to the Commission, including details of those individuals and organisations representing the victim. According to the Complainants, the communication is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and with the African Charter. The communication is presented in a polite and respectful language, and is based on information provided by the victim and on court documents, not on media reports. The Complainants state that the present communication has not been submitted to any other international human rights body for investigation or settlement. th 48. The Complainants claim that on 7 March 2005, the victim launched an application challenging the constitutionality of the Botswana Immigration Act. The application, which challenged the President’s decision to expel him from Botswana, was dismissed by the High Court of Botswana in a unanimous judgment. They submit that the High Court in its judgment found that the President’s declaration under Section 7(f) of the Immigration Act relates to what the President considers to be in the best interests of Botswana and Sections 11(6) and 36 of the same Act make the President’s declaration unassailable on the merits. th 49. The Complainants submit further that on 7 June 2005, the victim filed a notice and grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal, in which he sought an order setting aside both the judgment appealed th th against and the decision of the President of 18 February 2005. On 27 July 2005, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment dismissing the victim’s appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the President in making such declarations is empowered to act in what he considers to be the best interests of the country, without judicial oversight and that the Parliament which decreed that the President’s decisions are not subject to disclosure did not act ultra vires in doing so. 50. The Complainants aver that both Courts found that the President, in making his declaration that the victim was an“undesirable inhabitant or visitor to Botswana”, is empowered to act in what he considers to be the best interests of the country, without judicial oversight. The Courts ruled that in