A court declines to answer
A lesbian network wanted clarity from the African Court. No answer came, and that had consequences.
On 28 September 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in Arusha, Tanzania, announced a decision that many activists had been waiting for. The judges declared unanimously that they could not give the advisory opinion requested. There was therefore no answer to the actual question.
Behind the proceedings was the Coalition of African Lesbians, CAL for short. The pan-African network campaigns for women's rights and the visibility of lesbian women. It had been seeking observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Banjul since two thousand and eight, and finally obtained it in two thousand and fifteen. The joy was short-lived. The African Union's Executive Council, made up of the foreign ministers, demanded that the Commission withdraw the status. "African values" had to be taken into account, it said.
The Commission was caught in a dilemma. If it gave in, its independence was at stake. If it refused, it faced an open conflict with the continent's political leadership. CAL and the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria therefore turned to the court in Arusha. It was to clarify whether the Executive Council had overstepped its powers.
It was precisely this question that the court left open. The two organisations were African, it said, but not recognised by the African Union within the meaning of the court's protocol. The Centre for Human Rights criticised that, under this interpretation, practically no non-governmental organisation at all could request an advisory opinion.
The silence had consequences. Almost a year later, the Commission informed the coalition in a short letter that its observer status had been withdrawn. It cited the decisions of the Executive Council. For many human rights groups this was a turning point, because for the first time the governments had prevailed over the independent body.