Kuntakinte violated the African charter and other

relevant treaties by refusing to register NUGAL

association.

Article 10 of African Charter and article 22(1) of

ICCPR guarantees to every person the right to form

an association of any kind, without discrimination.

For the purposes of the African Charter and ICCPR,

Every person is regardless of their gender and sexual

orientation.

Thus, state parties have no ground to discriminate

citizens in the enjoyment of this right.

In the instant case, Abiba and her colleagues have

applied for the registration of NUGAL, an association

with purpose of advocating for the right of sexual

minorities.1

However, the companies and societies registry rejected

their application on the basis that the constitution of the

respondent state did not recognise homosexuals.

In this respect, in Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of Bar

Association) v Nigeria v Nigeria the African commission stated

as a general principle that, the competent authorities

should not enact provisions which would limit the

exercise of freedom of association and should not

override fundamental rights guaranteed by international

human rights standards.2

1
Hypothetical case, para 21.
2
. Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of Bar Association) v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 186 (ACHPR
1995), para 15.
In addition, the African Commission in its Resolution

on the Right to Freedom of Association of 1992

stressed that: The regulation of the exercise of the right

to freedom of association should be consistent with

states obligations under the African Charter.

Article 10 of ACHPR must be read jointly with Article

2 and 3 of the same, which protects the right to equality

and non-discrimination of every person.

Eventhough 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.

In similar manner, in Human Rights Forum v.

Zimbabwe, case the African Commission established

that, the principle of non-discrimination provided under

Article 2 of the African Charter provides the foundation

for the enjoyment of all human rights irrespective of

their sexual orientation.3

Moreover, HRC in Toonen v. Australia, case

established that the reference to the term sex in

Articles 2 and 26 of ICCPR includes sexual

orientation.4

Furthermore, the applicant submits that consensual

same-sex activity between adult is purely a matter of

private issue and should have to be seen in light of the

3
Communication 245/2002 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum/Zimbabwe, 21 st Activity Report,
EX.CL/322(X), Annexure III at para. 169.
4
Communication No 488/1992, Toonen v. Australia, UNHR Committee (31 March 1994) UN Doc
CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994)para 8.7.
right to privacy, which is guaranteed under art. 17 of

ICCPR.5

In the Toonen v. Australia, case the UN HRC,

established that laws criminalizing consensual same-sex

conduct violate the right privacy provided under Art. 17

of ICCPR.

Moreover, by relying on Articles 17 and 26 of the

ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee has urged Kenya

to repeal laws that criminalized homosexuality.6

5
ICCPR, Art 17 & Universal Declaration, Art 12.
6
UN Doc. CCPR/CO/83/KEN, 28 March 2005, at para. 27.
Limitation cannot justified on the ground of Moral

and Religious beliefs

Human rights are universal; they apply to everyone

simply because they are born human. This means that

all human beings, regardless of their gender or sexual

orientation are entitled to the full enjoyment of all

human rights.

In Eric Gitari v. NGO, the supreme court of Kenya

Held that, no matter how strongly held, moral and

religious beliefs they cannot be a basis for limiting

covenant rights.7 In addition, public morality cannot

justify discrimination contrary to the Covenant.8

7
Eric Gitari v Non- Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & 4 others [2015] eKLR, para 104.
8
Siracusa Principles, UN Doc E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984), para 27 & 28.
Furthermore, limitation of rights must be strictly

proportionate and necessary for the advantages that

follow and it may not erode a right to make it illusory.9

Therefore, the applicant submits that the respondent

state has violated the right to freedom of association

and non-discrimination provided under African Charter

and other relevant treaties.

9
Constitutional Rights Project and Others v Nigeria(2000) AHRLR 227 (ACHPR 1999), para 42.
3. Kuntakinte violated the African Charter and

other relevant treaties by not providing for the

abolition of the trokosi custom of the Bamileke

people.

As provided under art. 1, of the African Charter, article.

2, of the ICCPR, and other relevant treaties, the

respondent state has an obligation to provide, protect,

promote, and ensure womens human right without

discrimination by any means available.

In the instant case, there is widespread prevalence of

harmful cultural practice, such as trokosi, breast

ironing, and female genital mutilations (FGM) within

the respondent state.

Among the other, Trokosi is harmful cultural practice

that violates fundamental human right of women.

Because, it is slavery, degrading treatment and

discrimination based on sex.

It is lifelong servitude, which subjects women to

physical and mental abuse, including sexual

exploitation.

Once the women held trokosi, they are not allowed to

leave the shrine and they separated from any kind of

public life.

Additionally, Trokosi violates womans right to choose

a spouse and consent to marriage, by forcing the girls to

marry the priests.10

10
. trokosi - the practice of sexual slavery in Ghana: religious and cultural freedom vs. human rights
In the instant case, more than 7000 women have held

trokosi within the respondent state.

Article 5 of African womens protocol impose

obligation on state to abolish and eliminate all forms of

harmful practices which negatively affect the human

rights of women and which are contrary to recognised

international standards.11

Moreover, art. 21 of African childrens, charter also

impose on states parties an obligation to eliminate

cultures which are prejudicial for the right and welfare

of child.12

Human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and

interrelated. The violation of one may impede the

11
Maputo protocol article 5
12
Article 21 of African childrens charter and
enjoyment of the other or the enjoyment of the other

may partially or wholly dependent up on the other.

With the practice of trokosi, the whole part of womens

human right are at stake nothing is left untouched. Thus

we can conclude that it violates the whole right of the

women provided under the any fundamental human

right instrument.

The respondent state has failed to take legislative

measure to criminalise the act of trokosi and redress the

victims as required by international conventions it

ratified.13

13
African Charter,Art 1; African Children Charter,Art 1; Maputo Protocol, Art 2 & 25; ICCPR, Arts 2(2) &
CRC, Art 2(2).
The Governments engagement with traditional leader is

appreciable but it does not suffice to abolish the

practice given the magnitude of its impact and the

prevalence of the practice.

Moreover, the respondent does not invoke the

progressive realization of its obligation

1st those rights under violation are not socio-economic

right but, they are fundamental part of human right.

Moreover, if we see the responsibility of respondent.

The respondent has ratified the African Charter, in

1990, African Childrens Charter (in 2001); African

Womens Protocol in 2009: ICCPR in (1969) CRC (in

1995).14

14
. Para. 9 of the case
As we understand from this even after decades of the

ratification all of these instruments, the practice of

trokosi does not abolished. This indicates the great

failure of the Kuntakinte in respecting the human right

of the women.

Thus, the applicant submits that the respondent state has

violated its obligation under African Charter and other

relevant treaties by not providing for the abolition of

trokosi custom of Bamilike people.

Prayer for relief

According to Article 27 of the African Court

Protocol, the Court has authority to order the

Respondent to grant remedies for human rights

violation. Thus, the Applicant humbly and

respectfully requests this honourable Court to declare

that:

I. the Court has jurisdiction over the case, and all

the issues in the case are admissible;

II. the Respondent has violated freedom from

arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom from

torture, and right to fair trial detainee at PDF and

right of migrant children to get nationality.

And to order the Respondent to immediately

release and compensate victims of arbitrary

 arrest and detention, to stop collective expulsion

of migrants and to grant nationality to migrants

children born within its territory.

III. the Respondents refusal to register NUGAL

violates Articles 10 of African Charter and 22 of

ICCPR and order the Respondent to adjust its

domestic laws to conform with its international

obligations.

IV. the Respondents failure to criminalise trokosi

violates Articles 1 and of the African Charter,

and similar provisions in other relevant treaties;

and order the Respondent to ensure

criminalisation of trokosi, the release of trokosi

victims and to provide them adequate

compensation.