Share
Hussein v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2018) [2023] AfCHPR 7 (11 February 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] AfCHPR 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
- Panel
- Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J
- Case number
- Application No. 001/2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
- Panel
- Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Orè P, Tchikaya J
- Case number
- Application No. 001/2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court determined that it has prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application for provisional measures, as the alleged violations concern rights protected under the African Charter and the Protocol, to which the Respondent State is a party. Given the Applicant's sentence of death and the risk of irreparable harm to his rights under Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court found that the circumstances warranted the issuance of provisional measures. The Court exercised its powers under Article 27(2) of the Protocol to order a stay of execution of the death sentence pending determination of the main application, thereby preserving the status quo and protecting the Applicant's rights.
Court disposition
provisional_measures_granted
Orders
- The Respondent State is ordered to stay execution of the death sentence handed down against the Applicant, pending determination of the main application.
- The Respondent State is ordered to report to the Court within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Order on the measures taken to implement the same.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tembo Hussein
ApplicantUnited Republic of Tanzania
Respondent Counsel: Dr. Clement J. Mashamba03
Procedural history
Posture
Order for Provisional Measures / Provisional Measures
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the application for provisional measures.
- 02
Whether the circumstances warrant the issuance of provisional measures to stay execution of the death sentence.
- 03
Whether the rights under Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter are at risk of irreparable harm.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant, currently detained and sentenced to death, alleges irregularities in his trial, including failure of assessors to exercise their rights under Section 177 of the Tanzania Evidence Act and violation of Article 13 of the Constitution of Tanzania. He requests the Court to issue an order for provisional measures to stay execution of the death sentence pending determination of the main application.
- Respondent
- The Respondent State, represented by the Solicitor General, did not submit arguments specifically opposing the request for provisional measures at this stage. The State is a party to the African Charter and the Protocol and has accepted the Court's jurisdiction to receive applications from individuals.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 27(2) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
The Court may issue provisional measures in cases of extreme gravity or urgency to avoid irreparable harm.
- 02
Rule 51(1) of the Rules of Court
The Court need only establish prima facie jurisdiction before issuing provisional measures.
- 03
Article 3(1) of the Protocol
Jurisdiction extends to cases concerning interpretation and application of the Charter, Protocol, and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court determined that it has prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application for provisional measures, as the alleged violations concern rights protected under the African Charter and the Protocol, to which the Respondent State is a party. Given the Applicant's sentence of death and the risk of irreparable harm to his rights under Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court found that the circumstances warranted the issuance of provisional measures. The Court exercised its powers under Article 27(2) of the Protocol to order a stay of execution of the death sentence pending determination of the main application, thereby preserving the status quo and protecting the Applicant's rights.
Obiter and limits
- This Order is provisional in nature and does not prejudge the Court's findings on jurisdiction, admissibility, or the merits of the case.
- The Court will determine the main application in due course, following further submissions and proceedings.
Court disposition
provisional_measures_granted
- The Respondent State is ordered to stay execution of the death sentence handed down against the Applicant, pending determination of the main application.
- The Respondent State is ordered to report to the Court within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Order on the measures taken to implement the same.
Source and reliance status
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
$\frac{1202/2019}{001/2018}$
$.000081$
AFRICAN UNION
الاتحاد الأقريقي
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIÃO AFRICANA
AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES
THE MATTER OF
TEMBO HUSSEIN
$\mathsf{V}.$
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
APPLICATION No. 001/2018
ORDER FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES
11 FEBRUARY 2019

The Court composed of: Sylvain ORE, President; Ben KIOKO, Vice-President; Rafa? BEN ACHOUR, Angelo V. MATUSSE, [/.-Th6rdse MUKAIVULISA, Suzanne MENGUE, Tujilane R. CHIZUMILA, Chafika BENSAOULA, Blaise TCHIKAYA, Stella l. ANUKAM - Judges; and Robert ENO, Registrar;
ln the matter of
Tembo HUSSEIN
unrepresented
versus
(
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
represented by:
Dr. Clement J. MASHAMBA, Solicitor General, Attorney General's Chambers
after deliberation
rssues the following Order:
I. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
- 1. On 2 March 2018, the Court received an Application filed by Tembo Hussein (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") against the United Republic of fanzania (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent State"), for alleged violation of his'human rights. - 2. The Applicant who is currently in detention at Uyui Central Tabura Prison was, on 11 October 2013, convicted for murder and sentenced to death by hanging by the High Court of Tanzania sitting at Tabora. The sentence was, on 7 August 2017, upheld by the Court of Appeal sitting at Tabora, the highest court in Tanzania. - 3. The Applicant alleges, inter alia, that the trial at the High Court was vitiated by irregularities, that the assessors did not exercise their right under Section
177 of the Tanzania Evidence Act Cap. 6 RE 2002 to put questions to the witnesses, and violated Article 13 of the Constitution of Tanzania.
4. ln the Application, Court was requested to issue an Order for Provisional ltleasures.
II. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
- 5. The Application was received at the Registry on 2 March 2018 - 6. lt was served on the Respondent State on 23 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.
III. ON JURISDICTION
- 7. ln dealing with any Application filed before it, the Court must conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction, pursuant to Articles 3 and 5 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"). - 8. However, before issuing an Order for Provisional Measures, the Court need not establish that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but simply satisfy itself that it has prima faciel jurisdiction. - 9. Article 3(1) of the Protocol stipulates that: "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 concerned".
<sup>1</sup> See Application No. 00212013. African Commission on Human and Peoples'RrErhfs v. Libya (Order of 151312013 for Provisional Measures); Application No. 00612012. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rlghfs v. Kenya (Order of 151312013 for Provisional Measures)and Application No. 00412011. African Commission on Human and Peoples'Rrgrhfs v. Libya (Order of 251312011 for Provisional Measures)
- 10. The Respondent State became a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples'Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter") on 9 March 1984 and to the Protocol on 10 February 2006. lt also, on 29 lt/arch 2010, made the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive applications from individuals and non-governmental organizations in accordance with Articles 34(6) of the Protocol read together with 5(3) thereof. - 11. The alleged violations, subject of the Application, are in respect of the rights protected by Articles 3(2), 4 and 7 (1Xc) of the Charter. The Court therefore has jurisdiction rationae materiae to hear the case. - 12.1n light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that it has prima facie jurisdiction to examine the Application.
IV. ON THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES REQUESTED
- 13. As indicated in paragraph 4 above, the Applicant prays the Court to issue an Order for Provisional Measures. - 14. ln accordance with Article 27(2) of the Protocol and Rule 51(1) of its Rules, "in cases of extreme gravity or urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable harm to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems necessary", or the measures which it deems necessary to adopt in the interest of the parties or of justice ". - 15. lt lies with the Court to decide for each case, whether in light of the particular circumstances of the matter, it should exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it by the aforementioned provisions. - 16.1n the instant case, the file record indicates that the Applicant was sentenced to death.
- 17.|n view of the circumstances of this case and the risk that execution of the death penalty may jeopardise the enjoyment of the rights provided under Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court decides to exercise its powers under Article 27(2) of the Protocol. - 18. The Court therefore holds that the said circumstances require it to order Provisional Measures, in accordance with Article 27(2) of the Protocol and Rule 51 of its Rules, so as to preserve the sfafus quo pending a determination of the main Application. - 19. For the avoidance of doubt, this Order is necessarily provisional in nature and in no way prejudges the findings the Court might make as regards its jurisdiction, admissibility of the Application and the merits of the case.
VI. OPERATIVE PART
20. For these reasons
The Court,
unanimously, orders the Respondent State to
(a) sfay execution of the death sentence handed down against the Applicant, pending its determination of the main Application; and
b) repoft to the Court within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Order, on the measures taken to implement the same.
Done at Arusha this Eleventh Day of February in the Year Two Thousand and Nineteen, in English and French, the English text being authoritative
Signed
Sylvain ORE, President

Robert ENO, Registrar
$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{A}}$

Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.