DISSENTING OPINION OF THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER REMY NGOY LUMBU ON WHETHER DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON CUSTOM (POSSIBLY RELIGION) IS DISCRIMINATORY UNDER THE . AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS ' . 1. In this communication, voted on 30 May 2024 in Banjul, by 7 Commissioners (for) and 3 Commissioners (against), I did not vote as and with the majority. That is why, in accordance with the relevant procedural law of the Commission, I am drafting this dissenting opinion. 2. Paragraph 10 of the communication reproduces the complainants' allegations and states: To hold that Section 10 of the Chieftainship Act71, to the.. extent,that it excludes all eldest daughters from their father's succession as chiefs, and the Constitution of Lesotho, to the extent that it permits such discrimination, violates Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18(3) of the Charter and Articles 2, 3, 5, 8{f);,9, 13, 14, 17 and 21(2) of the Maputo Protocol. 3. The issue at stake is whetherthe customary rules governing the access to the throne of the Chief, which the . law and the Constitution of Lesotho have legalized, are discriminatory against girls of the customary lineage, insofar as they only allow boys. 4. The Commission considered that there is a violation of Article 2 of the Charter in this case, thus opening, in our opinion, a breach to which many other embarrassing situations could be rushed in the future, under custom or religion (the present case concerns only the first). It could be, as I think very strongly, that potential complainants question the Commission in the future if the barrier to access to the functions of Rabbi (Judaism), Priest (Catholicism) or Pastor (Protestantism)' or I~an (Islam), enshrined in sacred texts, is not discriminatory under the Charter or the Maputo Protocol. In the event of a positive response based on the precedent of this communication, do we really think that these monotheistic religions will apply this kind of decision or recommendation?