Right to stand for elections as an independent candidate in the African human rights system: The death of the margin of appreciation doctrine?Posted: 19 August, 2013 Filed under: Adem Kassie Abebe | Tags: African Charter, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Court, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, constitution, elections, Inter-American Court on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international human rights, margin of appreciation doctrine, Mtikila, right to association, right to equality, right to political participation, right to stand for elections, Tanzania, Tanzanian Court of Appeal 7 Comments
Author: Adem Kassie Abebe
Post-doctoral Fellow, University of Pretoria
Although the right to stand for elections is recognised as an essential aspect of the right to political participation, international human rights law does not specifically address the right of individuals to stand for elections as independent candidates, for example, without being a member of and sponsored by a political party. In fact, the only implied reference to independent candidacy is to be found in General Comment No 25 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the organ in charge of monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to participation. The Committee observes that “[t]he right of persons to stand for election should not be limited unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of parties or of specific parties” (paragraph 21). What constitutes an “unreasonable” limit to the right of persons to stand for election is not apparent. As a result of the lack of a clear rule, the law and practice in relation to independent candidates varies across borders. In some countries, individuals must be members of political parties to be able to stand for election. In others, they may stand for elections as independent candidates. In some others, independent candidates are allowed in relation to local elections but not in relation to parliamentary and presidential elections.
It is within this context of uncertainty that the African Court had to decide whether the ban on independent candidacy in Tanzania was compatible with the right to equality, the right to political participation, and the right to association in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre and Reverend Christopher Mtikila v The United Republic of Tanzania, Applications 009 and 011/2011). This case is interesting in many respects. Firstly, the case presented the African Court the first opportunity to address the margin of appreciation doctrine. Secondly, the application presented a test case to evaluate the trajectory of the African Court towards the jurisprudence of other international and regional human rights organs on similar issues. Thirdly, Tanzania is not the only African country that bans independent candidacy. The decision of the Court therefore has consequences for many other African countries.
A true glimmer of hope or a mere mirage? Term and age limits in the ‘new’ EthiopiaPosted: 15 October, 2012 Filed under: Adem Kassie Abebe | Tags: constitution, constitutional amendments, Ethiopia, governance, leadership, rule of law, Terms and age limits 1 Comment
Author: Adem Kassie Abebe
Doctoral candidate, Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria
After spending more than 21 years at the helm of Ethiopian politics, Meles Zenawi died of an unannounced sickness in August 2012. The absolute dominance of the ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), facilitated the smooth transition of power to the former Deputy Prime Minister, Halemariam Desalegn. Following the confirmation of Hailemariam as the new Prime Minister, the EPRDF announced that it has imposed, as part of its succession policy, two five-year term limits on all ministerial positions, including the position of the Prime Minster.The Party has also set a maximum age limit on the same positions. Henceforth, a Minister cannot be more than 65 years of age.