III.

Preliminary:
I. Statement of Jurisdiction
2. The Applicant submits that the African court on human and peoples right has jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issue at hand.
3. Pursuant to art. 3 and 7 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on
the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples Rights (hereinafter referred to as
the Protocol).The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it
concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant
Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned1. The same has been provided under
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, Interim Rules of Court, rule 26(1a) and rule 39(1)2
Moreover art. 3(2) of protocol and rule. 26(2) of court provides that, In the event of a dispute as
to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide.
4. The Republic of Kuntakinte has ratified ACHPR,African court Protocol, and all other regional
and international fundamental Human Right instruments3.
5. Announcement of Kuntakinte to withdraw its ratification of the African Court Protocol by
parliamentary enactment of the African Court Protocol Renunciation Act, passed on 17 May
20164. Would not oust the courts jurisdiction to entertain the case.
6. Pursuant to Article 56 of VCLT a treaty which contains no provision regarding withdrawal is not
subject to withdrawal unless: () It is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility
withdrawal. The respondent doesnt established any intention to withdraw from a treaty, instead
the intention behind withdrawal of the state of Kuntakinte is to escape the prosecution of the
massive violation of human right which are going on within the country.
7. OR (b) a right of withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty5. Under the preamble of
the protocol the states are firmly convinced that the attainment of the objectives of the African
Charter requires the establishment of an African Court to complement and reinforce the
functions of the African Commission.The withdrawal, negate this objective of the protocol. It is
possible from this, that the protocol doesnt provide any possibility for the withdrawal.

1
Article 3 and 7 of the protocol on the African charter on human and peoples` rights on the establishment of an
African court on human and peoples` rights, AHGRes.230 (XXX),(here in after the Protocol on ACHPR)
2
. African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, Interim Rules of Court, rule 26(1a)
3
. Para- 9 of the case
4
. Para- 23 of the case
5
. Ibid art. 56(2) and 65

I
8. The UN Secretary-General also rejected North Koreas purported withdrawal from ICCPR. In
the Secretary-Generals view, unilateral exit from the ICCPR was precluded by Article 54 of the
VCLT6, which he interpreted as permitting North Korea to withdraw only with the consent of all
of the other treaty parties7.
9. The state withdrawing should have to follow the procedure of the withdrawal. Party shall give
not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to withdraw from a treaty8.
10. In our case, the case is brought in attention of the court after few days of Renunciation Act 9.
Thus the jurisdiction of the court have not yet terminated. During the notice period, the legal
obligations of all States partiesincluding the nation that seeks to withdraw from or terminate
the agreementcontinue unabated. States also remain responsible for any breaches that occur
prior to or during the notice period, a responsibility that survives the States withdrawal or the
treatys end10.
11. Pursuant to Article 70(2) of VCLTunless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise
agree, the withdrawal from treaty does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the
parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its withdrawal. Nor does it impair the
duty of any State to fulfil any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it would be subject
under international law independently of the treatyan implicit reference to customary
international law11.These limitations are equally applicable to a State that unilaterally withdraws
from or denounces a multilateral treaty12.
12. As provided under the Withdrawal for review by the Republic of Rwanda from the declaration
made under Art. 34(6) of the protocol, whatever the legality of the withdrawal by Kuntakinte its
Renunciation Act, its effect cannot be to exclude from the courts jurisdiction any case that has
been submitted to the court before the withdrawal has become effective13.

6
. Article 54 provides that the termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place: (a) in conformity
with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other
contracting States. VCLT Art 54.
7
. UNHRC, General Comment 26 (1997) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add8/Rev1 [5]
8
. Ibid
9
. Para. 23 and 24 of the case
10
. Roodal v Trinidad and Tobago, Case 12.342, Inter-AmCHR
11
. At 43 of , Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969
12
. Arts 43, 70(2). of VCLT
13
. Withdrawal for review by the Republic of Rwanda from the declaration made under Art. 34(6) of the protocol to
the African charter on Human and Peoples Right on Establishment of African court on Human and Peoples Right.
Done at Kigali this 24th day of February 2016.

II
 13. Under Roodal v Trinidad and Tobago, Case; Notwithstanding Trinidad and Tobagos
denunciation of the Convention [on 26 May 1999] the Commission have retained jurisdiction
over complaints of violations of the Convention by Trinidad and Tobago in respect of acts taken
by that State prior to the date the denunciation became effective as well as over acts taken by the
State prior to [that date] even if the effects of those acts continue or are not manifested until after
that date14.
14. Thus based on the above assertion the renunciation of Kuntakinte doesnt affect the jurisdiction
of the court15.
I. ADMISSABILITY
15. Pursuant to art. 6(2) of the protocol: Rule 39 and 40 of the court: and Rule 106 of procedural
rule, Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56
of the Charter.
16. Under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right, the Commission must
consider a seven conditions when deciding upon the admissibility of a case.16
17. This includes among the others determining whether the communication: are not based
exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media: are sent after exhausting local
remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.
18. The applicant submits that the allegation was not exclusively based on the information received
from mass media. In addition to the information received from mass media there are also
corroborating evidence received from international, regional (Africa) as well as national NGOs,
Detention watch, and an appeal of the chairperson of the AU, commission17. This is borne out of
the fact that the Charter makes use of the word exclusively18.
19. The Applicants submit that all the available local remedies have been exhausted. The most
accepted general principle driven from the decision of African Commission on Human and
Peoples Right in the Jawara vs Gambia case stated that the exhaustion of local remedy must be

14
. Roodal v Trinidad and Tobago, Case 12.342, Inter-Am Commn HR 89, OEA/ser L/V/II114, doc 5 rev (2001)
<http://cidh.org/annualrep/2001eng/TT12342.htm> (concluding that [n] [on 26 May 1999]
15
. Vienna convention on the law of treaty currently ratified by more than 114 countries, and recognised as
customary international law by the USA and Supreme Court of India,( source; united states department of state, is
the united states party to the Vienna convention on the law of treaty? And http;//opiniojuris.org/2015/04/02/guest-
post-indian-court-embraces-vienna convention on the law of treaty)
16
. African Charter on human and peoples right,
17
. Supra note No. 3, para, 5, 16, 17, 18, and 22.
18
.Dawda Jawara V. The Gambia, para. 24.

III
 available, effective and sufficient.19A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue
it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found
sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint
20. The applicant brought the case before the high court, court of appeal and the supreme court of
the Republic of Kuntakinte upon different matter at different time however most of the cases are
either rejected or dismissed.
21. Concerning the constitutionality of section 246 of the 1969 Criminal and other Offence Act of
Kuntakinte the Supreme Court in 2003 rejected the challenge20.
22. In addition On 1 September 2012, case brought before the High Court, to challenge the
constitutionality of the refusal to register NUGAL. On 17 January 2016 the Chief Justice of
Kuntakinte, called a press conference attended by all judges from all levels of court, at which he
declared that the judiciary had resolved not to allow itself to be used in the immoral pursuit
NUGAL21.
23. Here the remedy is not available as the issue was illegal under the law of Kuntakinte. Under
SERAC v Nigeria, the Commission asserted that, if the right is not acknowledged, there cannot
be effective remedial action or any remedial action at all22.
24. The case brought to the High Court in Kuntakinte on 5 June 2015 to challenge the
constitutionality of the treatment of prisoners at PDF, dismissed by the high court under pretext
of national security.
25. The Court of Appeal rejected an appeal, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court
has subsequent to that ruling rejected several applications, brought on behalf of detainees at PDF,
based on the governments reliance on national security23.
26. Under Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v The Kingdom of Swaziland, the Commission
decided that, Since it is not in dispute that the Supreme Court Kuntakinte is the Respondent
States Court of final jurisdiction, the Commission considers that there were no other remedies
left to be exhausted given that the subject matter in the Communication before the Commission

19
. Dawda Jawara V. The Gambia, African commission, Comm. Nos. 147/95 and 149/96 (2000).Para.31 confirmed
in Communication 259/2002 - Groupe de Travail sur les Dossiers JudiciairesStratgiques v. Democratic Republic of
Congo. Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia, Egyptian Initiative for personal Right &Interights v Egypt etc.
20
. Ibid para. 8.
21
. Ibid para. 22.
22
. SERAC VS Nigeria, para.37 end line and Jwara vs The Gambia, para. 31.
23
. Ibid para. 18.

IV
 and that of the Supreme Courts judgment is the same. Consequently, the Commission holds that
local remedies were duly exhausted24.
27. More over the Supreme Court also failed to give effective remedy in due time and unduly
prolonged the case despite the fact that issue of grave violation of Human right: torture, inhuman
and degrading treatment; arbitrary detention; delayed trial,need immediate action to be taken.
The remedy that has no prospect of success does not constitute an effective remedy25.
28. With regard to the issue of trokosi, under the TsatsuTsikatav.Republic of Ghana case the
Commission stressed that the rational of exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement both
under the charter and other international instruments should be properly understood to ensure
that the state concerned has ample opportunity to remedy the situation pertaining to the
applicants compliant26.
29. It is necessary here to recount both the local as well as the international attention that the practice
of trokosi has received and the engagement of government with the traditional leader27, as proof
that the Kuntakinte government has had ample notice and, and over the past several decades,
more than sufficient opportunity to abolish the practice.
30. After a decade of ratification of the most fundamental human right instrument such as ICCPR,
ICESCR, ACHPR, ICRMW, CRC, to mention few Kuntakinte failed to protect, promote and
ensure rights provided under there and abolish the practice of trokosi.
31. Under Jawara vs Gambia the Commission established that, the remedies, the availability of
which is not evident cannot be invoked by the state to the detriment of the complainant28.
32. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights declares this
Communication Admissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter29.
III. Right to Standing
33. Commission is a quasi-judicial body offering important avenue for victims of human rights
violations committed in Africa to bring cases against the state(s) responsible30.

24
. Communication 414/12-Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland) v The Kingdom of Swaziland
25
. jawa vs The Gambia para. 38.
26
. Jawara vs The Gambia, para. 38 And TsatsuTsikatav.Republic of Ghana
27
. Supra note, note No. 3. Para. 5
28
. Jawara vs The Gambia, para. 34.
29
. Rule 106 and 107 of the procedural Rule of the African Commission on Human and peoples Right.
30
. Filing communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples Right, the Complainants Manual.
2013

V
34. Pursuant to art. 5(1a) of the protocol: Rule 33(1a) of the court: art. 55 and 56 of the charter: and
Rule 118(3) and (4) of the procedural rule, the Commission was entitled access to the court.
35. The respondent claims that the Commission is allowed under the Charter to take action only on
cases which reveal a series of serious or massive violation of human rights. Pursuant to arts. 55
and 58 of the African Charter.
36. This is an erroneous proposition. Apart from articles 47 and 49 of the Charter, which empower
the Commission to consider inter-state complaints, Article 55 of the Charter provides for the
consideration of communication other than those of states parties. Further to this, Article 56 of
the Charter stipulates the conditions for consideration of such communications 31. In any event,
the practice of the Commission has been to consider communications even if they do not reveal a
series of serious or massive violations.
37. It is out of such useful exercise that the Commission has, over the years, been able to build up its
case law and jurisprudence32.In accordance with the art. 55 of the Charter; Individuals i.e.
Ordinary citizens, a group of individuals or NGOs (which do not need observer status with the
Commission to file a complaint) can bring the case before the Commission. The author of the
communication need not be related to the victim(s) of the abuse but the victim(s) must be
mentioned33.
38. Our case there is series of serious or massive violation of human right in Kuntakinte as we are
going on to substantiate under the merit part. As provided under the definitional part of Rule 2 of
the procedural rule Serious or massive violations refers to grave human rights violations as
distinguished by their scale and importance.
39. Thus pursuant to Rule 84(2) of procedural rule, and Article 58 of the African Charter, Situation
of serious or massive violation of human rights: in conformity with Article 5(1a) of Protocol:
Rule 33(1a) of court: art. 55 and 56 of the Charter: and Rule 118(3) procedural rule: The
Commission submit a communication before the Court against a State Party. Pursuant to Rule
118(4) procedural rule Seizure of the Court: The Commission may seize the Court at any stage of
the examination of a communication if it deems necessary. For this reasons, the Commission do
have the capacity to standi.

31
. See Chapter XVII of the Rules of procedure entitled procedure for the Consideration of The Communications
Received in Conformity with Article 55 of the Charter.
32
. Jawara vs The Gambia
33
. Supra note No. 19

VI
 IV. MERIT

I. Kuntakinte violated the African charter and other relevant treaties in respect of the
circumstances leading to the detention of the inmates of PDF and the condition under
which they are detained.

1. The Kuntakinte violated the right to liberty and security of person and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and detention, and Violation of the right to Fair and speedy trial:

40. The right to personal liberty requires that persons not be subject to arrest and detention except as
provided for by law, and provided that neither the arrest nor the detention is arbitrary. The right
applies to all forms of detention where people are deprived of their liberty. The right to security
requires the country to provide reasonable measures to protect a person's physical security34.
41. International Court of Justice in its dictum in the Hostages in Tehran case, stated that
wrongfully to deprive human beings of their freedom and to subject them to physical constraint
in conditions of hardship is in itself incompatible with the principles of the Charter of the United
Nations, as well as with the fundamental principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights35.
42. The government of Kuntakinte violated art.9 of ICCPR and art. 6 of ACHPR, by arbitrarily
detaining the young panthers group without any evidence to support of his claim (under the
pretext of global fight against terrorism and national security) without charging of any specific
crime and a very prolonged trial under guise of investigation and in absence of due process of
law36.
43. Art. 9, paragraph 1, of ICCPR and art. 6 of ACHPR stipulates: Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. Detention which

34
. Alfred de ZayasHuman rights and indefinite detention
35
. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), ICJ
Reports 1980, p. 42, para. 91.
36
. Para. 16 of the case

-1-
 may be initially legal may become arbitrary if it is unduly prolonged or not subject to periodic
review37.
44. The government of Kuntakinte claims that those captured have links with a terrorist organisation,
based on President Bobos declaration of the Young Panthers as a terrorist group. The
government will, however, not provide any evidence to support this claim, saying that it would
compromise national security to do so.
45. National security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are
taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence
against force or threat of force38.
46. National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local
or relatively isolated threats to law and order. National security cannot be used as a pretext for
imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exist adequate
safeguards and effective remedies against abuse39.
47. Under the FIDH and OMCT v Sudan case the court ruled that, a deprivation of liberty that falls
outside the strict confines of the law, or for reasons that are not acceptable or simply arbitrary,
will amount to a violation of Article 6 of the Charter40.
48. Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, regarding
the right to liberty and securityof the person, provides that:
49. States must ensure that no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention and arrest,
detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the
lawpursuant to a warrant, on reasonable suspicion or for probable cause41.
50. The government of Kuntakinte clearly violated by arresting the young people just simply
because of believing they have link with Young Panthers group (considered terrorist by the
Bobos declaration the president of Malinke), which amounts to arbitrary arrest both under

37
. General Comment, No. 8, adopted by Committee of Human Right.
38
. Siracusa principle on the limitation and derogation provisions in the ICCPR
39
. Ibid
40
. Communication 379/09 FIDH and OMCT v Sudan para. 106
41
. Commissions Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa; see also the
Communication 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93 Organisation MondialeContre La Torture and Association Internationale
des juristesDemocrates) Commission Internationale des Juristes (C.I.J) Union Interafricaine des Droits de
l'Homme/Rwanda

-2-
 article 6 of the African charter and art 9 of the ICCPR. Thus the acts of Kuntakinte were not only
arbitrary, but also illegal and constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Charter42.
51. Under the Advocates Sans Frontiers v Burundi case the court stressed that, the right to fair trial
seeks to protect individuals from unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic
rights and freedoms, especially the right to life and liberty of the person. This right is essential to
the protection of all other fundamental rights and freedoms. The right to fair trial involves the
fulfilment of certain objective criteria, including the right to defense by a lawyer as well as the
obligation of the courts and tribunals to conform to international standards in order to guarantee
a fair trial to all43.
52. Some of the prisoners have been in detention for more than 15 months with no indication of
when they might be tried or set free44. Pursuant to article 7(1)(d) of African charter, arrested
person has the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. Art,
9(3) of ICCPR also provides the same right which states that anyone arrested shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or release45.
53. But contrary to this the government of Kuntakinte detained prisoners unreasonably as stated
above. Furthermore in Van Alphen v The Netherlands, the Human Rights Committee considered
the meaning of arbitrary in Article 9(1) of the ICCPR. In this case the applicant was detained a
period of over nine weeks without criminal charge or trial. The Committee confirmed that
arbitrariness is not to be equated with against the law, but must be interpreted more broadly to
include elements of inappropriateness, injusticeand lack of predictability.
54. Remand in custody pursuant to lawful arrest must not only be lawful but reasonable in all the
circumstances46. A similar result was found by the Human Rights Committee in A v Australia
where it recalls that the notion of arbitrariness must be interpreted more broadly to include such
elements as inappropriateness and injustice47. In MonguyaMbenge v Zaire, the applicant was
arrested for more than one year. Accordingly, it was the view of the Human Rights Committee
that he was subject to arbitrary arrest and detention contrary to the art. 9 of the covenant.48.

42
. Communication 379/09 FIDH and OMCT v Sudan para. 107
43
Advocates Sans Frontires (on behalf of Bwampamye) v Burundi (2000) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR 2000),para 26
44
Fact no. 16
45
Article 9(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
46
Van Alphen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 305/88, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988.
47
A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993, (30 April 1997).
48
Mbenge v Zaire, Communication No.16/1977, UN Doc. Supp.No 40 (A/38/40) 134 (1983) [20].

-3-
55. At the thirteenth session of the Third Committee of the General Assembly one meaning of
arbitrary submitted was arrest or detention pursuant to a law which was in itself unjust or
incompatible with the dignity of the human person or incompatible with the respect for the
right to liberty and security of person49.
1. Violation of Right to be Informed of the Reasons for the Detention:
56. Many of the prisoners have not been charged with specific crime and some of the prisoners have
been in detention for more than 15 months with no indication of when they might be tried or set
free50. Article 9(2) of the ICCPR provides for everyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the
time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against
him.
57. There are two rights under this, first, arrested has the right to be informed at the time of arrest of
and second, a person charged with an offence has the right to be promptly notified of a charge or
charges against him.
58. In Drescher Caldas v Uruguay, the Human Rights Committee held in relation to the
ICCPR: the Committee is of the opinion that Article 9(2) of the Covenant requires that anyone
who is arrested shall be informed sufficiently of the reasons for his arrest to enable him to take
immediate steps to secure his release if he believes that the reasons given are invalid or
unfounded. In this case simply informing Adolfo Drescher Caldas that he was being arrested
under the prompt security measures without any indication of the substance of the complaint
against him was a breach of Article 9(2) of the ICCPR51.
59. These allegations obviously point to the right not to be detained illegally and arbitrarily, which is
protected by Article 6 of the African Charter. Under Interights, ASADHO and Madam O. Disuv.
Democratic Republic of Congo the Commission notes that Article 6 includes the right of the
individual to be informed about the reasons for his arrest and charges preferred against him at the
time of the individuals arrest52. The Commission applied the afore-mentioned Principles in its

49
. United Nations 1964 Study, above n 1, 6, referring to Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth
Session, Annexes, Agenda Item 32, document A/4045, [439].
50
. Fact no. 16
51
. Adolfo Drescher Caldas v Uruguay, Communication No.43/1979 (11 January 1979), UN Doc.Supp. No 40
(A/38/40), 192 (1983), [13.2].
52
. African Commission Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa
(2001) Principles M (2)(a).

-4-
 decision in Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, where the arrest and detention lacked legal
basis53. Thus the respondent violated art. 9(2) of ICCPR and art. 6 of the Charter.

2. Kuntakinte Violated Right of Civilians not to be tried by Military Courts:

60. The only purpose of Military Courts shall be to determine offences of a purely military nature
committed by military personnel54. The young panthers are not the military personnel, instead
they are migrants (as a result of economic hardship and political instability) from neighboring
Malinke55. The branding of the president Bobo of Malinke, young panthers as terrorist, in the eye
of international law doesnt render them terrorist.
61. The main element in defining terrorism both under the national and international law are the
element of subjectivity and objectivity. The objective criteria requires the commission of serious
and grave crime, with the intention to create the climate of terror and fear within the community,
(subjective element.) or with the intention to coerce the government or international
organizations56.
62. In our case even though the young panthers stormed the local government office in the region,
burnt it down and beheaded five senior employees reported to be responsible for embezzling
funds57. This may be considered as heinous crime, however it would doesnt render them
terrorist. As their main intention is demand change and an end to Bobos government, as he is
proposing to amend the constitutional two-term limit to allow himself a third term in office, the
consequence which escalated the level of civil disobedience in the region58.
63. Military courts should not in any circumstances whatsoever have jurisdiction over civilians59.
However the government of Kuntakinte violated the right of the some of the detainee. As out 700
detainee as estimated by KHRO about 150 of the detainees have, been tried and convicted by the
General Court Martial, the highest military court of Kuntakinte60.

53
. Communication 274/03 and 282/03 Interights, ASADHO and Madam O. Disuv.Democratic Republic of Congo
54
. Principles and Guidelines on the right to a fair trial and legal assistance in Africa
55
. Para. 12 of the case
56
. Christian Walter defining terrorism in national and international law.
57
. Para. 12 of the case
58
. Ibid para. 10 and 12
59
. Principles and Guidelines on the right to a fair trial and legal assistance in Africa
60
. Ibid para. 16

-5-
64. The UN Human Right Committee in its general comment No. 13, concluded that the
jurisdiction of military court is restricted to offences of strictly military nature committed by
military personnel. The military courts are prohibited from trying civilians except in extra-
ordinary, objectively determined and narrowly defined circumstances such as cases where fair,
independent and impartial civilian court are unavailable61.
65. Art. 14 of ICCPR provides that: In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of
his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing
by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
66. The UNHR Committee stated in its general comment No.32, that whenever a state tries a civilian
before military court, it must offer the due process standards under art. 14. of the ICCPR. States
also required to provide objective reasons for trying civilians in military court and why ordinary
courts cannot be used62.
67. In the case of Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, the court found that special tribunal setup by
military regime with no ouster of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts violates the right to have
ones cause to be heard, under art. 7(1) of the Charter63.
68. In the case Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan, the Commission states that trial of civilian by
military court, violates the fundamental principle of fair trial and judicial independence provided
under art. 7 and 10 of the Charter64.

3. Kuntakinte violated the prohibition against torture, cruel and inhuman treatment
and the right to physical and mental health of the young panthers:

69. UnderMohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad V. The Republic Of Djibouti the Commission stated
that, prohibition of torture is a jus cogens rule of international law65. It is prohibited under the
international law without any limitation66. The government of Kuntakinte violated art. 7 and 10
of the ICCPR and art. 5 of the Charter by treating the detainee contrary to these articles. Under
the HRO and CHRE v Sudan, case in its interpretation of Article 5 of the Charter, the

61
. UN. Human Right Committee, GC. No. 13.
62
. UN. Human Right Committee, GC. No. 32
63
. Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria,
64
. Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan,
65
. Communication 383/10 Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad V. The Republic Of Djibouti
66
. Art. 4 of the ICCPR

-6-
 Commission adopted the definition of torture contained in the United Nations Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment67.
70. Article 1 of CAT defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity.
71. The situation in PDF, go in line with this definition, there is physical as well as mental suffering
on the detainee, which was inflicted by the government of Kuntakinte for the purpose of
obtaining information.
72. Article 5 of the Charter provides that;every individual shall have the right to respect of the
dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of
exploitation and degradation of man, particularly..torture, cruel inhuman or degrading
punishment or treatment shall be prohibited. The same concept has been provided under art. 7
and 10 of the ICCPR.
73. Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is
fundamental and universally applicable rule68. The aim of art. 7 of the ICCPR is to protect both
dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual69.
74. In the case Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Another v. Sudan commissionasserted that
the facts alluded to must be imputed to an authority or a State official, and that the purpose is to
punish the victim, and the punishment suffered must be physical, moral or psychological70.
75. In this case, it is undisputed that the reported treatments meted out by the State security officials
as a means of obtaining information or for the confession the Complainants for their presumed
members of the young panthers. As the government of Kuntakinte used various tactics to extract
information from those captured. At a bar in the city of Abebe, an undercover journalist

67
. See Article 4 of the Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (Robben Island Guidelines) adopted by the Commission
in October 2002.
68
. UN Human Right Committee General Comment No.21: art. 10 ICCPR.
69
. UN Human Right Committee General Comment No.20: art. 7 ICCPR
70
. Communication 279/03 (2009) AHRLR 153 (ACHPR 2009) paras 155-157. Also Ben Salem v. Tunisia
Communication 269/2005 (2007) AHRLR 54 (CAT 2007) paras 16.4, 16.5. and also Communication 274/03 and
282/03 Interights, ASADHO and Madam O. Disu v. Democratic Republic of Congo

-7-
 overheard a senior army officer who claimed that Malinkeese are wimps, just strap them to a
board with their feet raised above the head, add water and cloth and they will confess all their
sins to you. An international NGO, Detention Watch, issued a report, based on sources kept
confidential, confirming this allegations71.
76. Kuntakinte also violated the right to physical and mental health of the detainee. As media
sources have reported accounts of stress, anxiety and depression among those captured within the
detention facility. An international NGO, Detention Watch, issued a report, based on sources
kept confidential, confirming this allegations72. Pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter, Every
individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health.
77. The Commission observes that it has already been established that the allegations of torture in the
present Communication were duly brought to the attention of the authorities of the Respondent
State. As there has been a strong outcry from African NGOs to force President Adonai to close
PDF and an appeal from the Chairperson of the AU Commission fell on deaf ears.
78. A local NGO, RWB, approached the High Court in Kuntakinte on 5 June 2015 to challenge the
constitutionality of the treatment of prisoners at PDF and to petition the Court to close PDF and to
order the government to investigate the human rights violations that are taking place in the
detention facility73.
79. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the Complainants rights under Article 5 and
16 of the Charter and art. 7 and 10 of the ICCPR were violated74.

I. Kuntakinte violated the African Charter and other relevant treaties by refusing
to register NUGAL.
Whether Gay and Lesbians have a right to form associations in accordance with law
Whether decision to refuse to register NUGAL on the basis of its nature/character violated rights
to freedom of association and freedom from discrimination
Whether the Constitution protects against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation
1. On the right to association in accordance with law

71
. Para. 17 of the case
72
. Ibid
73
. Para. 18 of the case
74
. Communication 379/09 MonimElgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT)
v Sudan, para. 101.

-8-
80. Article 10 of the Charter and art. 22 of ICCPR grantee every person the right to form an
association of any kind. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than
those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of
public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
81. An individual is a person for the purposes of the Charter and ICCPR regardless of their gender
or sexual orientation. The Penal Code does not criminalise homosexuality but rather certain
sexual conducts against the order of nature which is not defined. Moreover, the Penal Code
does not contain any provision that limits the freedom of association of individuals on the basis of
their sexual orientation.
82. NUGAL aims to provide gays, lesbians and bisexuals in Kuntakinte with information on human
rights, and to advocate for their rights to non-discrimination, especially the right to access health
care without impediment based on sexual orientation75.
83. Whatever the views of the NUGAL the Companies and Societies Registry are with regard to such
people, it has a duty as a state entity to act in accordance with chapter two of the 1984 of
Constitution of the republic of Kuntakinte76 which provides for the all rights contained in the
ICCPR. Moral or religious beliefs, no matter how strongly held, cannot be a basis for limiting
rights. Freedom of religion encompasses the right not to have the religious beliefs of others
imposed on one77.
84. The Charter and relevant human right instrument protects those with unpopular views, minorities
and rights that attach to human beings, regardless of the views of the majority78. It is the duty of
the Companies and Societies Registry and Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution of
Kuntakinte, the Charter and relevant international instruments, not the views of the majority79.

2. On enjoying rights regardless of sexual orientation

75
. Hypothetical case para. 21
76
. Ibid para. 7
77
. Eric Gitari v NGO Board & 4 others, [2015], Petition 440 of 2013, The High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
78
. Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. v New Zealand, Communication No. 902/1999, U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002)
79
. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/60/509/Add.2 (Part II))]
60/161. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and
Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

-9-
85. In July 2012, the Companies and Societies Registry rejected their application on the basis that the
Constitution of Kuntakinte did not recognise homosexuals and that the objectives of the
organization were contrary to section 17(2)(a) of the Societies Act. Section 17(2)(a) of the
Societies Act provides as follows:
The Registrar shall refuse to register a local society where it appears to him, after consultation
with members of affected stakeholders that any of the objects of the Society is or is likely to be
used for any unlawful purpose or any purpose prejudicial to or incompatible with peace,
welfare, good order or morality in Kuntakinte80.
86. Article 2 and 26 of ICCPR and art. 2 and 3 of the Charter protects the right to equality and non-
discrimination of every person. Although these articles does not explicitly list sexual
orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination the grounds listed are not exhaustive, as is
evident from the use of the word other status. Allowing discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation would be counter to the constitutional principles of human rights, equity, social
justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the
marginalized as provided under chapter two of the constitution of the Kuntakinte. Companies
and societies registry and the Supreme Court of Kuntakinte violated the claimants right to non-
discrimination81.
87. A guiding principle throughout international human rights law is the prohibition of
discrimination. The principle is present in all major human rights treaties, and must be read as
complementary to and informative of other provisions. The provision is complemented by the
right to equality. In the African Charter, the preamble as well as articles 3, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22 and
28 of the Charter refer explicitly to these principles
88. Discrimination should be understood as imply any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference
which is based on any ground such as other status, and which has the purpose or
effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an
equal footing, of all rights and freedoms82.

80
. Para 21 of the case
81
.Freedom of Association, as Pertaining to Civil Society, and Freedom of Assembly in Africa: A Consideration of
Selected Cases and Recommendations ACHPR, 2014
82
. UNHC General Comment No. 18, para.7

- 10 -
89. As a society, once we recognise that persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or
intersex are human beings...however reprehensible we may find their sexual orientation, we must
accord them the human rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution to all persons, by virtue
of their being human, in order to protect their dignity as human83.
3. On the claim that NUGAL organisations promote illegal conduct and whether same-sex
conduct is criminalised:

90. A reading of the section 246 of the Criminal and Other Offence Act of Kuntakinte indicates that
the Act does not criminalise homosexuality, or the state of being homosexual, but only certain
conducts against the order of nature84. That the State does not set out to prosecute people who
confess to be lesbians and homosexuals in this country is a clear manifestation that such sexual
orientation is not necessarily criminalised.
91. What is deemed to be criminal under the above provision of the Act is certain sexual conduct
against the order of nature, but the provision does not define what the order of nature is. It
is the accepted principle of criminal law that there is no crime by the interpretation. The law
should have to provide specifically what is penalized under it, usage of generic term under
criminal law is against generally accepted principle of criminal law.
92. More importantly, the Act does not criminalise the right of association of people based on their
sexual orientation, and does not contain any provision that limits the freedom of association of
persons based on their sexual orientation.

4. On citing moral or religious beliefs to justify limitations on rights:

93. The Company and Societies Registry and the Supreme Court rely on their moral convictions and
what they postulate to be the moral convictions of most Kuntakitains. They also rely Opinion
polls conducted in 2002 by the Kuntakinte Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) showed that about
93 per cent of Kuntakintes predominantly Christian and Muslim population support the
criminalization of same-sex relations85. We must emphasize, however, that no matter how
strongly held moral and religious beliefs may be, they cannot be a basis for limiting rights: they

83
. Eric Gitari v NGO Board & 4 others, [2015], Petition 440 of 2013, The High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
84
. Para. 8 of the case
85
. Hypothetic case para. 8, 21 and 22.

- 11 -
 are not laws as contemplated by the Constitution86. Thus, neither The Criminal and Other
Offence Act, whose provisions we have set out above, which is the only legislation that the
respondents rely on, nor the religious and moral tenets that the Supreme Court cites, meet the
constitutional test for limitation of rights87.
5. Rights to freedom of association and assembly in universal and regional international law
94. Articles 10 and 11 of ACHPR (1981); Article 8 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child (1990); Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and
Governance (2011); Article 3 of the Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organise (No. 87), International Labour Organisation (1948); Article
15 of the 1951 Refugee Convention; Articles 21 and 22 of ICCPR (1966); Article 15 of the CRC
(1989);Articles 26 and 40 of the ICRMW (1990);Article 24 of the International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2000); Article 29 of the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006);Article 20 of the UDHR (1948); Articles 5 and
12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998);UN Human Rights Council
Resolution 21/16 (2012); UN Human Rights Council Resolution 25/20 (2014); ACHPR
Resolution 5/1992 on the Right to Freedom of Association;Article 28 of the Kigali Declaration
(2003). OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (2010); Report of the UN
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, A/66/290 (2011); Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, A/HRC/17/28 (2011); and All reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. All of this international instruments
doesnt provided sexual orientation as a prohibited ground, instead they call all the states to
facilitate and to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders,
at both the local and the national levels.

II. Kuntakinte violated the African Charter and other relevant treaties by not providing for
the abolition of the trokosi custom of the Bamileke people.

86
.Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. v New Zealand, Communication No. 902/1999, U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002)
87
. Eric Gitari v NGO Board & 4 others, [2015], Petition 440 of 2013, The High Court of Kenya at Nairobi

- 12 -
95. Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The practice of trokosi violate the Charter and other
relevant international human right instruments.
96. They have done nothing wrong and are subjected to a lifelong sentence for offences, which they
are clearly not in any way responsible for. Once labeled Trokosi, the girls are considered to
belong to the gods. They are then identified with the shrine and so lose their kinship identity and
are cut off from their family. Their status is lowered to the categorization of being regarded as
sub-human.
97. The Trokosi system violates the fundamental human rights value because the girls taken to the
shrines are stripped of their liberty, security of person and dignity, as well as subjected to cruel,
inhuman, and degrading treatment by being enslaved to other human beings against their will,
having to work under the complete control of the priests, and having to satisfy the priests' sexual
desires88.
98. As provided under various provisions of Charter and other Human Right instruments, the
republic of Kuntakinte have agreed to undertake, to adopt legislative or other measures to give
effect to the rights provided under those instruments.
99. The term "discrimination againstwomen" shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction
made on the basisof sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying
therecognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their maritalstatus, on a basis
of equality of men and women, of human rights andfundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural, civil or anyother field89.
100. As provided under art. 1, 2, and 3 of the Charter, art. 2, 3 and 26 of the ICCPR, art. 1, 2, and 3
of CEDAW, art. 2and 4 of CRC and art.1 and 3 of African Charter On The Rights And
Welfare Of The Child, the Kuntakinte have agreed to provide, protect, promote and ensure
equality before the law and equal protection of the law without any discrimination between
men and women by any means available. Pursuant to art. 2 of the ACHPR Womens Protocol

88
. Trokosi - The Practice Of Sexual Slavery In Ghana: Religious And Cultural Freedom Vs. Human Rights
89
. Art. Of CEDAW

- 13 -
 the republic of Kuntakinte have agreed to combat all forms of discrimination against women
through appropriate legislative, institutional and other measures.
101. The Women's Convention recognizes that culture may be misused as a basis for discrimination
and urges states parties to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or
abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against
women90. However the government of Kuntakinte failedits duty to ensure the protection
expected of him without any discrimination which exposed the women to the ritual servitude.
1. The republic of Kuntakinte failed to protect the women and the children from harmful
cultural practice.
102. Trokosi is harmful cultural practice that violates fundamental human right value, because it
separates girls and young women from their families, usually against their will;' subjects them
to physical and mental abuse, neglect, negligent treatment, maltreatment and exploitation,
including sexual abuse;' deprives the girls of a "standard of living adequate for the child's
physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development;" deprives the girls of their right to
education in many instances and economically exploits their labor to perform work that
interferes with their right to education and that is harmful to their health or physical, mental,
spiritual, moral or social development.
103. The failure of the Kuntakinte to abolish exposed the women and the children to the massive
violation of human right. Even though there has been steady decline in the number of trokosi
cases over the last decades as a result of governments engagement with the traditional leaders.
This does not justify governments commitment to abolish the practice.
104. The state have duty to support culture and traditions that are compatible with fundamental
rights, human dignity, democratic norms and ideals and basic human right instruments. As we
have seen the practice was resulting in the massive violation of fundamental human right which
need immediate reaction from the state. These slaves are subjected to all kinds of exploitation
including forced menial labour and sexual abuse. They are denied access to health and
education91.
105. Human rights and culture cannot be separated from each other. Factors such as race, nationality,
ethnicity, etc., are integral to the human rights construct. However, there is a distinction to be

90
. CEDAW, art. 2(f).
91
. Equality Now, Slavery in Ghana: The Trokosi Tradition Womens Action 14.1: March 1998

- 14 -
 made between considering or accommodating cultural customs and using culture as a pretext to
deny the integrity and dignity of individuals on the basis of sex. Culture should not be used as
"a shield to protect practices that violate women's human rights.
106. The lives of trokosi are one of neglected cruelty and exploitation which are all stated to have
negative effect on their physical, mental and moral development. Yet successive governments in
the 50 years of independence as a nation have not had courage to abolish the practice. Thus
Kuntakinte violated, art. 5 of ACHPR Womens Protocol, art. 21 of African Charter on the Rights
and Welfare of the Child, art. 9 and 34 of CRC, and 8 of ICCPR, all which prohibit and impose
upon the government to eliminate harmful cultural practice against the women.
2. The government of Kuntakinte failed to protect women and women children from being
slavery.
107. Trokosi violates fundamental human right because it is slavery, degrading treatment, and
discriminates on the basis of sex. The Trokosi are forced to work long hours in the fields of the
shrine, without any payment and are forced to provide sexual favors to the priest and bear
children for him92. Trokosi "is a system in which a young girl, usually under the age of 10, is
made a slave to a fetish93.
108. Any kind slaver whether sexual, forced labor, ritual, and servitude is prohibited under the
Charter and relevant human right instruments. Pursuant to art. 8 of ICCPR, art. 4 and 5 of the
Charter, art. 9 and 34 of CRC, and art. 14 and 27 of African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of
the Child, any kind of slavery, servitude, exploitation whether labor and sexual shall be prohibited
without any ground of justification to derogate from.
3. The Government of Kuntakinte failed to protect the right to liberty, security of person,
dignity, privacy, protection from Sexual abuse, protection from degrading treatment,
torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,
109. Trokosi violates the liberty, security, and privacy of the enslaved girls and women. It is slavery,
degrading treatment, and discriminates on the basis of sex.
110. Religious and cultural freedoms must be restricted by "the fundamental right to bodily integrity,
freedom from torture and discrimination. Even though this belief is not widely accepted in many
third-world areas, it is readily acknowledged that religion cannot defend or pardon subjugation

92
. Trokosi Slavery: Injustice in the name of religionBenjamin Rinaudo, La Trobe University
93
. trokosi - the practice of sexual slavery in Ghana: religious and cultural freedom vs. human rights

- 15 -
 when dealing with well-recognized rights. Slavery is an example: while virtually all traditional
religions accepted slavery at one time, it has been outlawed as "one of the most serious violations
of human rights94.
111. Trokosi violates women's and children's human rights in a variety of ways that cannot be
justified on religious and cultural grounds. The abuses to these girls who are involuntarily taken
to the trokosi for sins they did not commit is continuing. The right to liberty, security of person,
dignity, privacy, protection from Sexual abuse, protection from degrading treatment, torture,
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, has been recognised and protected under the
fundamental human right instruments.
112. The failure of the government of Kuntakinte to protect the womens specially children violates
these right of the women. By that the government of Kuntakinte violated art. 6, right to life: art. 7,
prohibition against torture and inhuman treatment: art. 9 liberty and security of persons; art. 17,
right to privacy; and art. 26 right to equality, of ICCPR.Art 4, inviolability of human right; art. 5
respect of the dignity; art. 6 the right to liberty and to the security of his person of ACHPR.Art. 3
Right to Dignity; Article 4; the Rights to Life, Integrity and Security of the Person; Article 8,
Access to Justice and Equal Protection before the Law; of ACHPR Womens Protocol.Art. 16
Protection against Child Abuse and Torture; Art. 21 Protection against Harmful Social and
Cultural Practices; Art. 27 Sexual Exploitation; of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child.
113. Additionally Kuntakinte violates the rights provided under the CRC. There are four basic themes
of children's rights incorporated in the CRC: "(1) emphasis on the 'best interests of the child'; (2)
recognition of the child's 'evolving capacities; (3) the principle of non-discrimination; and (4)
respect for the child's human dignity. CRC rigorously provides protection from harm; and special
care. Protection from harm includes protection from: physical, mental and sexual abuse and
neglect; economic, sexual and other exploitation; harmful labor; torture or cruel treatment;
traditional practices harmful to health (such as female genital mutilation); and separation from
parents. Special care includes the right of the child to an adequate standard of living, health care,
nutrition and education.
114. Several provisions of the CRC focus on the rights and potential needs of the female child to a
greater extent than any other human rights instrument. CRC directs state parties to abolish

94
. trokosi - the practice of sexual slavery in Ghana: religious and cultural freedom vs. human rights

- 16 -
 "traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children,it does not adequately address the
cultural discrimination the female child encounters in daily life95.
4. The government of Kuntakinte failed to protect womens and childrens right to health,
education, and food of (Trokosi Women)
115. Trokosi is lifelong servitude, subjects them to physical and mental abuse, neglect, negligent
treatment, maltreatment and exploitation, including sexual abuse; deprives the girls of a standard
of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development;
deprives the girls of their right to education. It affects the right to education in way that, once the
women held trokosi they are not allowed to leave the shrine and they neglected from any kind of
public life. By that the government of Kuntakinte failed its responsibility under the following
instruments to which it is party.
116. Article 16 of ACHPR every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of
physical and mental health. Article 17 of ACHPPR every individual shall have the right to
education.
117. Art. 12(1) Right to Education and Training States Parties shall take all appropriate measures
to:eliminate all forms of discrimination against women andguarantee equal opportunity and
access in the sphere ofeducation and training; article 14 health and reproductive rights; article 15
right to food security;article 16 right to adequate housing;article 18 right to a healthy and
sustainable environment of ACHPR womens protocol.
118. Article, 11 education;article 14 health and health services; article 25 separation from parents;
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
119. Furthermore, under the CRC children should have access to education (article 28) the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (article 24), and should not be exposed to
any type of sexual abuse (article 19), adequate standard of living (27). Under the Trokosi
system, all such articles are found to be in violation.
120. ICESCR provides the comprehensive right to the highest attainable health (12) right to education
(13 and 14), right to adequate food (11).
121. Also CEDAW provides the same under art. 11.1 (f) and 12. Additionally, Trokosi violates article
16 of CEDAW, which declares a womans right to choose a spouse and consent to marriage, by

95
. CRC, art. 19, .art. 32, 34, 36. Art. 32. Art. 38. Art. 37. Arts. 11, 35. Art. 33. Art. 24. Art. 9. Art. 27. Art. 24. Art.
24(2) (c), (e).Art. 28. Art. 24(3).

- 17 -
 forcing the girls to marry the priests. The Trokosi "are not free to choose whom they want to
marry. But are forced to marry the priests at a very early age and are burdened with the rearing of
children96.
122. This all violation of the right of women resulted from the governments failure to respect, to
promote and ensure the enjoyment of those rights, by failing to abolish harmful cultural practice
of the trokosi.
123. As we have already mentioned elsewhere human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and
interrelated. The violation of one may impede the enjoyment of the other or the enjoyment of the
other may partially or wholly dependent up on the other.
124. As we have seen the whole part of human right are at stake by the practice of the trokosi, nothing
is left untouched. Thus we can conclude that it violates the whole right provided under the any
fundamental human right instrument.
125. The government of Kuntakinte does not justify its failure on any ground, the engagement with
traditional leaders in the Bamileke region regarding this issue, doesnt be justification, as it is the
massive violation of human right and the issue of slavery and sexual exploitation doesnt have
any exception at all.
126. The Republic of Kuntakinte has ratified the ACHPR, in 1990, African Childrens Charter (in
2001); African Womens Protocol in 2009: ICCPR and ICESCR in (1969): ICRMW in (1994):
CRC (in 1995). In addition the 1984 constitution of the republic of Kuntakinte provides for all
human rights that are contained in the ICCPR and ICESCR, all of which are rendered justiciable
under various provisions of the Constitution97.
127. As discern from this even after a decades of the ratification all of these instruments, the practice
of trokosi of doesnt abolished. This indicate the great failure of the Kuntakinte in respecting the
human right especially the women.
128. Economically Kuntakinte is at a better position than any other western African country.
Politically unitary presidential constitutional government98. Thus had Kuntakinte committed itself
to abolish such harmful practice they do have more than enough power do so. But this indicate the
gross negligence of the Kuntakinte toward discrimination against women.
I. Prayer for relief

96
. trokosi - the practice of sexual slavery in Ghana: religious and cultural freedom vs. human rights
97
. Para. 9 of the case
98
. Para. 1 of case

- 18 -
The applicant humbly requests the honorable court to declare that;
1. African court on human and peoples right has a jurisdiction and the case is admissible.
2. The Kuntakinte violated the right to liberty and security of person;
3. Kuntakinte violated freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention;
4. Kuntakinte Violated the right to Fair and speedy trial;
5. Violation of Right to be informed of the Reasons for the Detention;
6. Kuntakinte Violated Right of Civilians not to be tried by Military Courts;
7. Kuntakinte violated the prohibition against torture, cruel and inhuman treatment;
8. Kuntakinte the right to physical and mental health of the young panthers;
9. Kuntakinte violated the right to association and the right to health as well as prohibition
against discrimination of NUGAL;
10. Kuntakinte failed to protect the right of women by not providing any measures against
the harmful practice of Bamileke region;
11. That the Kuntakinte is in violation of the right to life of person.
12. The payment of adequate compensation for the rights violated covering material
damages; including costs for medical treatment, psychological and social services, legal
or other expert assistance, loss of earnings and loss of earning potential, lost
opportunities, including employment and education; special damages, including moral
damages.
13. To order provisional measure, especially concerning the treatment of the detainee at PDF,
and to protect youngest daughter of Ratif, Marema, from pledge as a trokosi99.

Respectfully submitted,
Agents for the African Commission (Applicant)

99
. ibid para, 20

- 19 -