Courting Dignity: The East African Court of Justice and the Jurisprudence of Silence
Posted: 20 November, 2025 Filed under: Carolyn W. Gatonye | Tags: cited torture, civil war, crimes against humanity, EAC, East Africa, East African Court of Justice, enforced disappearance, fundamental freedoms violation, gender equity, harassment, human dignity, human rights defenders, human rights violations, jurisdiction, jurisprudence, political sensitivities, rising repression, silence of justice, unlawful arrests, unlawful imprisonment 3 Comments
Author: Carolyn W. Gatonye
Kabarak University
The silence of the East African Community (EAC) in the face of rising repression in Tanzania is deafening. Yet, this is hardly new thunder in the EAC bloc. Time and again, the region has watched storms gather over its neighbors; tremble, then retreat. Its response to human rights violations has slowly been morphing into a modern norm, where crises within partner states are met with studied indifference. No meaningful condemnation, no show of solidarity with those whose rights are violated, just mere silence, setting a dangerous precedent that suggests member states may violate fundamental freedoms without fear of regional scrutiny. It’s from this refusal to speak out, that the EAC risks complicity in the very injustices its Treaty seeks to prevent.
It’s official: The East African Court of Justice can now adjudicate human rights cases
Posted: 1 February, 2016 Filed under: Ally Possi | Tags: African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Appellate Division, EAC, EAC Member States, EACJ, East African Community, East African Court of Justice, First Instance Division, human rights jurisdiction, rule of law, Vienna Convention 4 Comments
Author: Ally Possi
Lecturer, Law School of Tanzania; Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania
The legitimacy of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to adjudicate human rights cases has been a debatable aspect ever since the Court’s inception. Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the East African Community (EAC) Treaty mention human rights, which ordinarily the EACJ is mandated to interpret. However, article 27(2) of the Treaty implies to suspend what seems to be a legitimate human rights authority of the Court. Consequently, articles 6(d), 7(2) and 27(2) have made litigants, legal scholars and even EACJ judges to be at cross-roads with respect to EACJ’s human rights jurisdiction.
The recent decision in Democratic Party v. The Secretary General of the EAC, Appeal No. 1 of 2014 (Democratic Party case) will make the functioning of the EACJ rather interesting within the near future. In that case, the EACJ unequivocally held that it has ‘jurisdiction to interpret the Charter [African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights herein the African Charter] in the context of the [EAC] Treaty.’ This lining of the decision becomes more authoritative as it is from the Appellate Division section of the Court.
AfricLaw 