Share
Lado James Paul, Ayume Dada and Others v Republic of South Sudan (Communication 736 of 2020) [2021] ACHPR 519 (3 December 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ACHPR 519
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Withdrawal Decision
- Case number
- Communication 736 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Withdrawal Decision
- Case number
- Communication 736 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The African Commission, upon receiving a formal request for withdrawal and discontinuation from the complainant, and noting the absence of objection or compelling reason to refuse, exercised its discretion to grant the withdrawal. The Commission found that the complainant, having appointed new legal representation and determined that circumstances affecting the merits had changed, was entitled to discontinue the process. The Commission thus declared the communication closed, without making findings on the substantive allegations.
Court disposition
withdrawn_and_closed
Orders
- The request for withdrawal is granted.
- The communication is declared closed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lado James Paul
Applicant Counsel: John Gerry EmmanuelAyume Dada
Applicant Counsel: John Gerry Emmanuelothers
Applicant Counsel: John Gerry EmmanuelRepublic of South Sudan
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Human Rights Communication / Withdrawal Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the continued detention of individuals without charge or access to a judge violates their rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 02
Whether the ousting of judicial jurisdiction and alleged lack of judicial independence in South Sudan constitutes a breach of fair trial guarantees.
- 03
Whether the withdrawal of the communication by the complainant should be granted by the Commission.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants alleged arbitrary arrest and detention by the National Security Service in Juba, South Sudan, without charge or access to judicial review, and that the judiciary was not independent due to executive interference, including the dismissal of judges. The complainant later requested withdrawal of the communication, citing changed circumstances and consultation with new legal representation.
- Respondent
- No substantive response from the respondent is recorded in the withdrawal decision. The Commission's analysis is limited to the withdrawal request.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 6
The right to liberty and security of person, and protection against arbitrary detention.
- 02
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 7
The right to fair trial and judicial independence.
- 03
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Rules of Procedure
Discretion of the Commission to allow withdrawal of communications upon request by the complainant.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission, upon receiving a formal request for withdrawal and discontinuation from the complainant, and noting the absence of objection or compelling reason to refuse, exercised its discretion to grant the withdrawal. The Commission found that the complainant, having appointed new legal representation and determined that circumstances affecting the merits had changed, was entitled to discontinue the process. The Commission thus declared the communication closed, without making findings on the substantive allegations.
Obiter and limits
- The Commission notes that circumstances affecting the merits of a complaint may justify withdrawal and discontinuation of proceedings.
- The closure of the communication does not constitute a determination on the merits of the allegations presented.
Court disposition
withdrawn_and_closed
- The request for withdrawal is granted.
- The communication is declared closed.
Source and reliance status
African Commission 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 Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIÃO AFRICANA
Commission Africaine des Droits de l'Homme & des Peuples
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region, P. O. Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia Tel: (220) 4410505 / 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504 E-mail: au-banjul@africa-union.org; Web www.achpr.org
Communication 736/20
Lado James Paul, Ayume Dada & others (Represented by John Gerry Emmanuel)
Republic of South Sudan
Adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights During the 67<sup>7h</sup>Ordinary Session done virtually from 13 November to 3<sup>rd</sup> December 2021
Odterterel
Commissioner Solomon Ayele Dersso Chairperson of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
Ms. Lindiwe Khumalo Ag. Executive Secretary to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights on Withdrawal
Communication 736/20 - Lado James Paul, Ayume Dada & others (Represented by John Gerry Emmanuel) v The Republic of South Sudan
Summary of the Complaint
- 1. The Secretariat of the African on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) received a Complaint on 4 December 2017 from John Gerry Emmanuel (the Complainant) on behalf of Lado James Paul, Ayume Dada and others (the Victims), against the Republic of South Sudan (the Respondent State). - 2. The Complainant alleges that in July 2014 and on 5 January 2015, Lado James Paul and Ayume Dada were arrested and detained in Juba by the national security on allegations that they support the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM - IO), a breakaway group from the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and a lawful political party in the country. - 3. The Complainant alleges that the National Security Service established a detention centre in the capital, which continue to be used to detain people (the other Victims) without charges or access to judges. The Complainant alleges that the number of detainees and their conditions are unknown to anyone but the Service officers, since information about them is denied and access to the facility is prohibited. - 4. The Complainant further alleges that in addition to the ousting of the jurisdiction of the court through the provisions of Article 21(1) (c) of the National Security Service Act, the Complainant alleges that the judiciary in South Sudan cannot be said to be independent and impartial, particularly since members of the judiciary went on strike on 21 April 2017 to protest allegations of corruption and maladministration. He states that this resulted in the President dismissing fourteen (14) of the striking judges, without reason, leaving the remaining judges with a fear of reprisal from the executive of RETARIAT
Application for Withdrawal
- 5. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Commission) was seized of the Communication during its 27th Extra-ordinary Session, held from 19 February - 4 March 2020. - 6. A request for withdrawal and discontinuation of the Communication was received from the Complainant on 4 June 2020. The Complainant submitted that he appointed a new legal representative and upon notice of seizure of his Complaint, it was learned that the circumstances have changed, which affects the merits of the Complaint. In consultation with his legal representative, he has decided to discontinue the process of this Communication.
Analysis of the African Commission
The Commission sees no objection in granting this request.
Decision of the African Commission
- 8. The Commission decides to grant the request for withdrawal. - 9. Based on the above, the Commission declares the Communication closed.
Done Virtually, this 67<sup>th</sup> Ordinary Session, held from 13 November to 3 December 2020
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.