African Human Rights Court declines jurisdiction on Pan African Parliament’s rotational presidency - AFRICAN PARLIAMENTARY NEWS

Breaking

memfysadvert

memfysadvert
memfys hospital Enugu

Monday, July 26, 2021

African Human Rights Court declines jurisdiction on Pan African Parliament’s rotational presidency

v  Says only the Court of Justice and Assembly of Heads of State can handle the matter

v  Implication is that PAP may have to revert to Executive Council decision DOC.EX.CL/1028(XXI)

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has declined jurisdiction to issue advisory opinion on a request by the Clerk of the Pan African Parliament (PAP), Vipya Harawa to give Advisory Opinion on the application of the principle of regional rotation in electing members of the PAP.

The Advisory Opinion was delivered by the Court on Friday July 16 at 11 am in Advisory Opinion No. 001/2021.  

Mr. Harawa’s request arose from the suspension on 1 June 2021 of the election of the Bureau of the PAP. The incident occurred after the election process was disrupted due to an argument over the application of the principle of regional rotation in the election of the Bureau.

He informed the Court that, there is currently a strong dispute within PAP regarding the interpretation of the Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to the Pan-African Parliament and the Rules of Procedure of PAP with respect to the election of the Bureau of the Parliament.

Harawa stated that the said dispute was mainly on whether the above mentioned instruments prescribed for the application of the principle of regional rotation adopted by the African Union (AU), and whether the said principle is binding and enforceable when electing the Bureau.

On the behalf of PAP, Harawa requested for an opinion from the Court on the following questions:

                a. Whether the regional rotation principle observed by the AU in general, is stipulated in Rule 12 of the PAP Protocol and Rules 14-16 of the Rules of Procedure when electing the Bureau or not.

                b. And if rotation is not stipulated in the Protocol and Rules of Procedure of PAP, is the principle and practice of rotation binding and enforceable when the PAP elects its Bureau members (President and Vice-President)?

                c. And whether if the elections of the Bureau are conducted in accordance with the Protocol and Rules of Procedure as they stand currently, that is, without following regional rotation, such elections would be valid and compliant with the PAP Protocol and Rules of Procedure or not.

                d. And whether the Court is of the opinion that the Rules of Procedure will have to be amended to make regional rotation binding and enforceable or not.

                e. And if the Court is of the opinion that to be binding and enforceable, the Rules of Procedure must be amended, whether the elections of the new Bureau should be conducted first to facilitate the amendment of the Rules or not.

In its ruling, the Court found that the legal instruments referred to by Mr. Harawa “are not human rights instruments given that the clauses of the PAP Protocol and its Rules pertaining to the principle of regional rotation do not provide subjective rights for individuals or groups, nor do they prescribe obligations from which such rights may be derived but rather pertain to the administrative operation of PAP as they relate exclusively to the composition of its Bureau and how the elections of the Bureau Members should be conducted”.

The Court further found that, the “mere reference to human rights in the preamble and Article 11(1) of the PAP Protocol does not suffice to make it a human rights instrument as these clauses do not enunciate individual subjective rights or prescribe corresponding obligations for State Parties to the instrument. The Court took note of the Author’s reference to the Charter and the Democracy Charter and found that, their provisions relating to elections and participation thereto are expressly said to apply to citizens and in respect of elections conducted at the national level within AU Member States and not to how elections of the PAP Bureau should be conducted”.

“In light of these considerations, the Court found that it did not have material jurisdiction to entertain the Request given that the relevant instruments were not human rights instruments within the meaning of Article 4(1) of its Protocol”.

The Court therefore opined “that the paramount importance of the mandate entrusted to PAP and the fact that the present Request involves a situation that threatens the smooth operation of the Institution as it faces a legal quandary, demanded that PAP be as to what legal means could be effectively utilized to resolve the predicament that it faces”.

On this point, the Court opined that, “under Article 20 of the PAP Protocol, the Court of Justice of the African Union has jurisdiction to interpret the PAP Protocol; that the Protocol establishing the Court of Justice had entered into force since 2009 even though the said Court has yet to become operational; that, however, it cannot exercise jurisdiction merely because the legally empowered Court has yet to start its operations”.

The Court further opined that, based on the same provisions of the Protocol establishing the Court of Justice, pending the operation of the latter Court, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU is empowered to interpret the PAP Protocol. The Court found that, due to the above, it could not therefore exercise jurisdiction on the question arising in the present Request without overstepping jurisdictional boundaries vis-à-vis both the Court of Justice and the Assembly.

The Court, for these reasons, found that it did not have jurisdiction to give the Advisory Opinion requested.

With the Court’s decision, the issue of rotation of the presidency of PAP is now the exclusive decision of the Assembly since the Court of Justice has not been constituted. African Parliamentary News recalls that the Assembly had delegated this authority to the Executive Council. PAP will therefore have to revert to Executive Council decision DOC.EX.CL/1028(XXI) issued in July 2017 which called “on the Pan African Parliament to apply the African Union values, rules and regulations in managing all activities of the organ, including rotation of the Bureau and Presidency”.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer: Comment expressed do not reflect the opinion of African Parliamentary News