East African Court of Justice

Seat: Arusha, Tanzania | Operating Since: 2001 | Instrument: Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) is the judicial body of the East African Community, a regional integration organization whose Member States are Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia. The Community’s goals are free movement of people and goods, economic integration, and political union among the Member States. Article 6 (d) of the establishing Treaty lists fundamental principles intended to guide the institution as: “good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”

The EACJ was established by Article 9 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and is charged with interpreting and applying the treaty, and resolving disputes involving the East African Community and its Member States. The EACJ is based in Arusha, Tanzania. This tribunal does not yet have competence to hear individual complaints of alleged violations of human rights law, as such, because this area of jurisdiction has not yet been fully operationalized by the EAC.

With regard to the EACJ’s possible role in disputes related to fundamental rights, Article 27 of the Treaty provides, “The Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction.” In May 2005, the Council of Ministers issued a Draft Protocol to Operationalise the Extended Jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice, but the protocol has not yet been approved.

While the EACJ does not presently have a fully operationalized standalone human rights jurisdiction under Article 27(2) of the EAC Treaty, the Court continues to hear treaty-interpretation cases involving the rule of law, good governance, accountability, and human rights related principles under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The Court is therefore best described as a treaty-based rule of law forum with important human rights implications, rather than as a fully-fledged human rights court.

Despite the EACJ’s lack of explicit jurisdiction to hear human rights cases, it has addressed cases involving individual rights. In the case of Katabazi v. Secretary General of the East African Community, the EACJ was petitioned to determine the lawfulness of the detention of Ugandan prisoners. The EACJ conceded that “jurisdiction with respect to human rights requires a determination of the Council and a conclusion of a protocol to that effect. Both of those steps have not been taken. It follows, therefore, that this Court may not adjudicate on disputes concerning violation of human rights per se.” However, the EACJ also determined that “it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) merely because the reference includes allegation of human rights violation.” While the EACJ did not evaluate the claims within a human rights framework, the Court found that the respondent had violated the principle of the rule of law and consequently contravened the Treaty.

In 2010, the EACJ further decided, in Sitenda Sebalu v. Secretary General of the East African Community et al., that the failure to extend the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Article 27 violated the applicant’s legitimate expectations that the matter be expedited and contravened the principles of good governance stipulated in Article 6 of the Treaty. After this, the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction was the focus of discussions within the EAC’s governing bodies, but ultimately, in 2013 the decision was made to adopt a protocol that would extend the Court’s jurisdiction with regard to certain trade and investment issues, leaving jurisdiction over human rights allegations untouched. The EACJ therefore remains without express authorization from EAC leaders to hear human rights complaints on their own. See Helen Trouille et al., Regulating the EAC: the origins, jurisdiction and authority of the East African Court of Justice (2021); Ally Possi, An Appraisal of the Functioning and Effectiveness of the East African Court of Justice, 21 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1–42, 12 (2018).