Arusha. Legal practitioners in Africa have resolved to step up efforts to address cases of impunity on the continent and ensure that leaders accused of serious crimes are held accountable even after leaving office.
Through the Pan African Lawyers Union (Palu), the advocates have filed a request for an advisory opinion at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha.
“The issue here is how we can ensure accountability in cases such as genocide, war crimes, human rights violations and other forms of atrocities on the African continent,” said Palu Chief Executive Officer, Donald Deya.
The move means that cases involving alleged impunity in one African country could be pursued in another under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
“For many decades, the African continent has experienced serious human rights violations, including war crimes, genocide and other atrocities,” said Mr Deya.
“Yet, alongside these realities, there has been a persistent and troubling pattern, the absence or inconsistency of accountability,” he added.“Too often, victims have been left without justice and perpetrators have escaped responsibility, while regional and international legal systems have struggled to respond in a coherent and timely manner to these violations,” said the Palu official.
He said it is within this context that the principle of universal jurisdiction has emerged and gradually developed as an important tool in the fight against impunity.
Mr Deya explained that universal jurisdiction reflects the idea that certain crimes are so serious that they transcend national borders and concern the international community as a whole, meaning all states have a role in ensuring accountability.
One of the most notable examples of this principle on the African continent is the case of former Chadian president Hissène Habré.
“After leaving power, he settled in Senegal. Victims of his regime, supported by civil society groups from Nigeria, Senegal and beyond, sought justice for acts of torture and other serious violations committed during his tenure,” said Mr Deya.
He noted that what followed was a prolonged legal and political process, as Senegal initially hesitated to prosecute Habré until Belgium, invoking its universal jurisdiction laws, opened its own investigation and sought his extradition.
Belgium later referred the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
In its ruling, the ICJ clarified that under the Convention against Torture, Senegal had a legal obligation either to prosecute Habré or extradite him for trial.
Habré was eventually arrested on June 30, 2013, in Dakar and later tried by a special court established through an agreement between the African Union and Senegal.
“This was a historic moment for Africa, not only because justice was delivered, but also because it demonstrated that accountability can be achieved through African institutions,” said Mr Deya.
He added, however, that many such cases have relied on action by non-African states, particularly in Europe, rather than African countries applying a clear and consistent legal framework.
“This brings us to the present moment — under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, do African states have responsibilities beyond their borders?” he posed.
According to Palu Legal Officer, Ariel Shabani, the objective is to clarify existing legal obligations and ensure they are consistently understood and applied across the continent.
“That is what we have placed before the African Court in Arusha, and it is expected to be deliberated upon in the coming months,” said Shabani.
He also referred to a related case before the African Court involving civil society organisations accusing the government of Mali of allegedly hiring foreign mercenaries linked to the killing of more than 500 people.
“This is an example of efforts to use legal mechanisms to address impunity in Africa,” said Mr Shabani.
