Abstract
The analysis of African practice on sovereign immunities is both absent in the work of international lawyers and made up of generalisations in the few works that do address it. On the one hand, probably because of the difficulty of accessing documentation on the practice of African states, few, if any, chapters are devoted to the African perspective in the numerous books on the subject. On the other hand, due to the high media coverage, African practice has sometimes been summarized in terms of the crisis between the African Union and the International Criminal Court. This chapter attempts to highlight the African perspective on sovereign immunities, highlighting the values, tensions and divergences that inform it. It reveals a much more mixed picture that is indicative of the dynamics running through the continent that impact efforts to define an African vision of international law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See Koagne Zouapet (2021), p. 22.
- 3.
According to Jouannet, liberal Western democracies have instilled in international law a ‘certain legal ethnocentrism’. Jouannet (2008), p. 62.
- 4.
- 5.
Tladi (2015), p. 3.
- 6.
See Pellet (2019), p. 8.
- 7.
See Okoye (1972), p. 178.
- 8.
Koagne Zouapet (2020), p. 43.
- 9.
Yakemtchouk (1972), p. 19.
- 10.
Yakemtchouk (1972), p. 19.
- 11.
- 12.
See articles 3(g), 4(m) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union; African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance adopted on 30 January 2007.
- 13.
See for example Mazila v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (A13/2015) Namibia High Court Main Division [NAHCMA] 24 (13 February 2015), paras. 17–18; Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich, Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe, Sheriff of Zimbabwe, Supreme Court of Zimbabwe [ZSC], 19 March 2018 & 31 October 2018, pp. 16–17; The International Committee of the Red Cross v Phyllis Sibanda, MunyamaNgangura, ZSC, 30 September 2003 & 13 January 2004, p. 6; Dube and Rabasha v American Embassy/Botusa, First instance judgment, case n° IC 897/2006, 30 October 2008, Botswana Industrial Court, para. 8.
- 14.
Letter from the Secretary of State, Jack B. Tate to the Attorney General dated 19 May 1952. See for a historical overview, Fox (2019), pp. 21–30.
- 15.
Alderton (2009), p. 702.
- 16.
See Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 89–140.
- 17.
Chukwuemeke Okeke (2018), pp. 97–101.
- 18.
Koagne Zouapet (2020), p. 90.
- 19.
Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich et al., 2018, ZSC, p. 15. See also Eastern African Development Bank v Blueline Enterprises Limited, 2011, Tanzania Court of Appeal [TZCA] 1; Concorp International Ltd v East and Southern Africa Trade and Development Bank, 2013, Uganda Supreme Court [UGSC] 18; Dube and Dube and Rabasha v American Embassy/Botusa, First instance judgment, case n° IC 897/2006, 30 October 2008, Botswana Industrial Court, para. 10.
- 20.
The International Committee of the Red Cross v Phyllis Sibanda, Munyama Ngandura, SC 48/03, 2004, ZSC, pp. 3–5; Angola v Springbok Investments (Pty) Ltd, Application for review, MISCA n° 4/2002, 12 October 2003, Botswana High Court, para. 8.
- 21.
Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich et al., Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, p. 20, after quoting Section 326 of the Constitution. In the same vein, Angola v Springbok Investments (Pty) Ltd, Application for review, MISCA n° 4/2002, 12 October 2003, Botswana High Court, para. 7; Inter-Science Research and Development Services (Pty) Ltd v Republica Popular De Mocambique 1980 (2) SA 111.
- 22.
See Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 90–103.
- 23.
Backer Mc Cormac (PVT) Ltd v Government of Kenya, Zimbabwe High Court, ZLR 185 (1).
- 24.
The International Committee of the Red Cross v Phyllis Sibanda, Munyama Ngandura, SC 48/03, 2004, ZSC, p. 5.
- 25.
Edna S. Ouma v The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, civil case 160 of 2004, High Court of Kenya, 2009.
- 26.
Strydom (2019), p. 670.
- 27.
Koagne Zouapet (2020), p. 92.
- 28.
Mazila v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran [2015], NAHCMD 24, paras. 19–23.
- 29.
The International Committee of the Red Cross v Phyllis Sibanda, Munyama Ngandura, SC 48/03, 2004, ZSC, p. 6.
- 30.
Bah v Libyan Embassy, Application to Industrial Court, case n° IC 956/2005, 28 November 2005, Botswana Industrial Court.
- 31.
Dube and Dube and Rabasha v American Embassy/Botusa, First instance judgment, case n° IC 897/2006, 30 October 2008, Botswana Industrial Court, para. 22.
- 32.
Tribunal de Grande Instance du Mfoundi (Cameroun), Ngolle Matouke c. BEAC, jugement social n°117 du 19 mars 2001.
- 33.
Tribunal de Grande Instance du Mfoundi (Cameroun), Kuidjeu GassamFélicité c. CICR, jugement social n°153 du 2 septembre 2002.
- 34.
The International Committee of the Red Cross v Phyllis Sibanda, Munyama Ngandura, SC 48/03, 2004, ZSC, p. 7.
- 35.
Minister of Foreign Affairs v Michael Jenrich et al., Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, p. 16.
- 36.
Hafner and Lange (2004), p. 68.
- 37.
See for a presentation and discussion of the diverging national jurisprudence on this issue, Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 118–123.
- 38.
See Angola v Springbok Investments (Pty) Ltd, 2003, Botswana High Court, para. 16.
- 39.
Parties to the Port Louis Treaty of 17 October 1993 on the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (revised on 17 October 2008 in Quebec, Canada) are currently: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo.
- 40.
See Tribunal de Grande Instance du Wouri (Cameroun), ordonnance du président sur requête n°0339, 13 novembre 1998, SNIF c. ONPC; Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Menoua (Cameroun), ordonnance présidentielle de référé n°12, 11 septembre 2000, Tonye Dieudonné c. Université de Dschang.
- 41.
See for example Kenfack Douajni (2002), p. 5.
- 42.
CCJA, arrêt n°043/2005 du 7 juillet 2005, Aziablevi Yovo et a. c. Société Togo Télecom.
- 43.
CCJA, 3ème chambre, arrêt n°024/2014 du 13 mars 2014, Koutouati A. Akakpo Danwodina et dix-huit autres c. Société Togo-Port dite Port autonome de Lomé.
- 44.
CCJA, Troisième chambre, Mbulu Museso c. La Société des Grands Hôtels du Congo S.A. et autres, pourvoi n°112/2016/PC du 30/05/2016, arrêt du 26 avril 2018.
- 45.
De Saba (2016), p. 260.
- 46.
According to Article 33 of the Uniform Act on Enforcement, the following are enforceable titles: court decisions bearing the executory formula and those which are enforceable on the original; foreign acts and court decisions as well as arbitration awards declared enforceable by a court decision, not subject to an appeal suspending enforcement, of the State in which this title is invoked; conciliation reports signed by the judge and the parties; notarial deeds bearing the executory formula; decisions to which the national law of each State party attaches the effects of a court decision.
- 47.
Sawadogo (2008).
- 48.
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and others, CCT 101/12, [2013] ZACC 22.
- 49.
The SADC Tribunal is an international jurisdiction established within the SADC framework to ensure adherence to, and proper interpretation of the provisions of, the SADC Treaty and subsidiary instruments, and adjudicates upon disputes referred to it. The decision of the Constitutional Court concerned the possibility of enforcing a decision of the SADC Tribunal against the Government of Zimbabwe in South Africa. The SADC Tribunal decision in issue was Mike Campbell (PvT) Limited and others v The Republic of Zimbabwe, which examined the legality of the policy of government expropriation of farms in Zimbabwe. See for an overview of this crisis and the backlash against the SADC Tribunal Alter et al. (2016); Obonye (2013); Scholtz and Ferreira (2011); Nathan (2013).
- 50.
- 51.
Strydom (2019), p. 683.
- 52.
‘Article 32: Enforcement and execution. 1. The law and rules of procedure for the registration of enforcement of foreign judgments in force in the territory of the State in which the judgment is to be enforced shall govern enforcement. 2. States and institutions of the Community shall take forthwith all measures necessary to ensure execution of decisions of the Tribunal. 3. Decisions of the Tribunal shall be binding upon the parties to the dispute in respect of that particular case and enforceable within the territories of the States concerned. Any failure by a State to comply with a decision of the Tribunal may be referred to the Tribunal by any party concerned. 5. If the Tribunal establishes the existence of such failure, it shall report its finding to the Summit for the latter to take appropriate action’. The new wording resulting from the amendment of the Protocol on 18 August 2014 is slightly different. Article 44, which in the new Protocol is devoted to the enforcement and execution of the Tribunals decisions, is formulated in slightly more restrictive terms.
- 53.
Article 54(1): Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. A Contracting State with a federal constitution may enforce such an award in or through its federal courts and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if it were a final judgment of the courts of a constituent state.
- 54.
Woolaver (2015), pp. 226–227.
- 55.
In the case of ICSID arbitration, Article 55 of the ICSID Convention states that ‘Nothing in Article 54 shall be construed as derogating from the law in force in any Contracting State relating to immunity of that State or of any foreign State from execution’.
- 56.
See Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 202–204.
- 57.
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and others, para. 21.
- 58.
Ibid., para. 62.
- 59.
See on this judicial activism of the South African Constitutional Court and international law, Koagne Zouapet and Plagis (2019).
- 60.
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and others, para. 1.
- 61.
Koagne Zouapet (2020), p. 247.
- 62.
See Tladi (2009), pp. 62–64.
- 63.
Tladi (2009), p. 57.
- 64.
See for example article 5 (2) Constitution of Cameroon; article 54 Constitution of Côte d’Ivoire.
- 65.
Resolution 1593 (2005) / adopted by the Security Council at its 5158th meeting, on 31 March 2005, UN Doc. S/Res/1593 (2005).
- 66.
Resolution 1970 (2011) adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting, on 26 February 2011, UN Doc. S/Res/ 1970 (2011).
- 67.
Assembly/AU/Dec.221 (XII), Decision on the application by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor or the indictment of the President of the Republic of Sudan (3 February 2009).
- 68.
Ibid., para. 6.
- 69.
Ibid., para 2.
- 70.
Maluwa (2019), p. 329.
- 71.
ICC ASP General Debate, opening statement by Adv Tshililo Michael Masutha, MP, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Republic of South Africa, Sixteenth session of the Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court, New York, 4 – 14 December 2017, p. 3. See Dyani-Mihango (2020), p. 320.
- 72.
Dyani-Mihango (2020), p. 324.
- 73.
See the critical analysis of this position by Tladi (2009), pp. 67–69.
- 74.
Ngwaba (2015), p. 96.
- 75.
Kamto (2013), p. 147.
- 76.
See for analysis of the alleged loss of credibility by the ICC, Ssenyonjo (2017), pp. 758–762.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
Mutua (2001), p. 203.
- 80.
Ngwaba (2015), p. 97.
- 81.
The pan-African organisation seems to be looking for a jurisdictional model that it is far from having found. See Koagne Zouapet (2017).
- 82.
See Abass (2017).
- 83.
Ext/Assembly/AU/Dec.1 (October 2013), Decision on the Africa’s relationship with the ICC, para. 9.
- 84.
Ibid., para. 10(i).
- 85.
See for example Murungu asking whether extending jurisdiction of the African Court to cover criminal matters (along with article 46Abis) ‘has a legal basis under the ICC Statute’. Murungu (2011), p. 1077.
- 86.
Abass (2017), p. 21.
- 87.
ICTY, Trial Chamber, Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para. 227.
- 88.
See on the possible customary value of Article 27 (2) of the ICC Statute, Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 334–341.
- 89.
Koagne Zouapet (2020), pp. 334–338.
- 90.
Tladi (2015), pp.1315.
- 91.
Tladi (2015), p. 15.
- 92.
See Sect. 2 above.
- 93.
See The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-139-Corr-Anx, Annex: Corrigendum to the Decision Pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Failure by the Republic of Malawi to Comply with the Cooperation Requests Issued by the Court with Respect to the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 15 December 2011; The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-140, Decision pursuant to article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the refusal of the Republic of Chad to comply with the cooperation requests issued by the Court with respect to the arrest and surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 15 December 2011; The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-302, Decision under article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the non-compliance by South Africa with the request by the Court for the arrest and surrender of Omar Al-Bashir, ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 6 July 2017.
- 94.
The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, case 867/15, Supreme Court of Appeal [SCA], 15 March 2016.
- 95.
Ibid., para. 40.
- 96.
Ibid., para. 73.
- 97.
Ibid., para. 84.
- 98.
Ibid., paras. 59–60.
- 99.
Ibid., para. 63.
- 100.
Ibid., para. 103.
- 101.
Judge Ponnan in his separate opinion underlines this paradox. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, case 867/15, Supreme Court of Appeal [SCA], 15 March 2016, para. 122.
- 102.
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, case 867/15, Supreme Court of Appeal [SCA], 15 March 2016, para. 122.
- 103.
The Attorney General and others v The Kenya Section of International Commission of Jurists, civil appeal n° 105 of 2012 consolidated with criminal appeal n° 274 of 2011, Court of Appeal (Kenya), 16 February 2018.
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Ibid.
- 106.
Tomuschat (2011), p. 221.
- 107.
Koagne Zouapet (2021), pp. 33–34.
- 108.
Kennedy (2007), p. 642.
References
Abass A (2017) Historical and political background to the Malabo protocol. In: Werle W, Vormbaum M (eds) The African criminal court. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 11–27
Alderton M (2009) Immunity for heads of state acting in their private capacity-Thor shipping A/S v. The ‘AL DUHAIL’. Int Comp Law Q 58:702–711
Alter KJ, Gathii JT, Helfer LR (2016) Backlash against international courts in West, East and Southern Africa: causes and consequences. Eur J Int Law 27:293–328
Chukwuemeke Okeke E (2018) Jurisdictional immunities of states and international organizations. OUP, New York
Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. OUP, Oxford
De Saba A (2016) La protection du créancier dans le droit uniforme de recouvrement des créances de l’OHADA. Thèse de doctorat en droit. Université de Paris I pantheon-Sorbonne
De Wet E (2014) The case of Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Louis Karel Fick: a first step towards developing a Doctrine on the status of international judgments within the domestic legal order. Potchefstroom Electr Law J 17:554–612
Dyani-Mihango N (2020) Reflecting on South Africa’s attempt to withdraw from the Rome Statute in favour of immunities for sitting heads of state: an analysis of the international crimes Bill 2017. Afr J Int Comp Law 28:319–351
Fox H (2019) The restrictive rule of State immunity – the 1970s enactment and its contemporary status. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 21–39
Fox H, Webb P (2013) The law of state immunity. OUP, Oxford
Frimpong Oppong R, Niro LC (2014) Enforcing judgments of international courts in national courts. J Int Disp Settlement 5:344–371
Gericke SB (2014) The interplay between international law and labour law in South Africa: piercing the diplomatic immunity veil. Potchefstroom Electr Law J 17:2601–2634
Glenn HP (2014) Legal traditions of the world, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford
Hafner G, Lange L (2004) La convention des Nations Unies sur les immunités juridictionnelles des États et de leurs biens. AFDI 50:45–76
Jenson LC (2013) The restrictive theory of sovereign immunity and the Chinese–African relationship. Transnatl Law Contemp Probs 22:563–598
Jouannet E (2008) What is the use of international law? International law as a twenty–first–century guardian of welfare. In: Ruiz Fabri H, Jouannet E, Tomkiewicz (eds) Select proceedings of the European Society of International Law volume I 2006. Hart, Oxford, pp 51–96
Kamto M (2013) L’affaire Al–Bashir’ et les relations de l’Afrique avec la Cour pénale internationale. In: Kamga M, Mbengue MM (eds) Liber amicorum Raymond Ranjeva. L’Afrique et le droit international: variations sur l’organisation internationale. Pedone, Paris, pp 147–170
Kenfack Douajni G (2002) L’exécution forcée contre les personnes morales de droit public dans l’espace OHADA. RCArb 18:3–12
Kennedy D (2007) One, two, three, many legal orders: legal pluralism and the cosmopolitan dream. N Y Univ Rev Law Soc Change 31:641–659
Koagne Zouapet A (2017) L’Union Africaine à la recherche de son introuvable juridiction. In: Mvele G, Zang L (eds) L’Union Africaine quinze ans après, vol 1. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 279–298
Koagne Zouapet A (2020) Les immunités dans l’ordre juridique international. Le prisme de la constance. Pedone, Paris
Koagne Zouapet A (2021) Regional approaches to international law (RAIL) rise or decline of international law? KFG working paper series n°46
Koagne Zouapet A, Plagis MA (2019) Braamfontein encroaching? An internationalist reading of the South African Constitutional Court judgment on the SADC Tribunal. South Afr J Human Rights 35:378–403
Maluwa T (2019) The contestation of value–based norms: confirmation or erosion of international law? In: Krieger H, Nolte G, Zimmermann A (eds) The international rule of law: rise or decline? OUP, Oxford, pp 311–334
Murungu CB (2011) Towards a criminal chamber in the African Court of justice and human rights. J Int Crim Just 9:1067–1088
Mutua M (2001) Savages, victims and saviors: the metaphor of human rights. Harv Int Law J 42:201–246
Nathan L (2013) The disbanding of the SADC tribunal: a cautionary tale. Human Rights Q 35:870–892
Ngwaba U (2015) The ICC, Africa and the travesty of international criminal justice. In: L’Afrique et le droit international penal. Pedone, Paris, pp 89–104
Obo UB, Ekpe D (2014) Africa and the international criminal court: a case of imperialism by another name. Int J Dev Sustain 3:2025–2036
Obonye J (2013) Neutering the SADC tribunal by blocking individuals’ access to the tribunal. Int Human Rights Law Rev 2:294–321
Okoye FC (1972) International law and the New African States. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Orekhelashvili A (ed) (2015) Research handbook on Jurisdiction and immunities international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton
Pellet A (2019) Values and power relations - the ‘disillusionment’ of international law? KFG working paper series n°34
Peters A, Lagrange E, Oeter S, Tomuschat C (eds) (2014) Immunities in the age of globalism. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Reinisch A (ed) (2010) Challenging acts of international organizations before national courts. OUP, Oxford
Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) (2019) and Ferro L (ass ed) The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law. CUP, Cambridge
Sawadogo FM (2008) L’acte uniforme portant procédures simplifiées de recouvrement et voies d’exécution. In: Formation des juristesbéninois au droit OHADA, online
Schlemmer EE (2011) Tanzanian court of appeal, functional immunity and the east African development bank. South Afr Yearb Int Law 36:261–282
Scholtz W, Ferreira G (2011) Much Ado about nothing? The SADC tribunal’s quest for the rule of law pursuant to regional integration. ZaöRV, 331–358
Ssenyonjo M (2017) African States failed withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the international criminal Court: from withdrawal notifications to constructive engagement. Int Crim Law Rev 17:749–802
Strydom H (2019) South African law on immunities. In: Bradley CA (ed) The Oxford handbook of comparative foreign relations law. OUP, Oxford, pp 666–684
Tladi D (2009) The African Union and the international criminal Court: the battle for the soul of international law. South Afr Yearb Int Law 31:57–69
Tladi D (2015) The immunity provision in the AU amendment protocol separating the (doctrinal) wheat from the (normative) Chaff. J Int Crim Just 13:3–17
Tomuschat C (2011) Asia and international law: common ground and regional diversity. Asian J Int Law 1:217–231
Verhoeven J (ed) (2004) Le droit international des immunités: contestation ouconsolidation ? Larcier, Bruxelles
Woolaver H (2015) Domestic enforcement of international Judicial decisions against foreign states in South Africa: government of the Republic of Zimbabwe Fick. CCR pp 217–244
Yakemtchouk R (1972) L’Afrique en droit international. LGDJ, Paris
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koagne Zouapet, A. (2022). Too Hard-Won to be Wasted … Sovereignty, Immunities and Values: A (Sub-Saharan) African Perspective. In: Bismuth, R., Rusinova, V., Starzhenetskiy, V., Ulfstein, G. (eds) Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87705-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87706-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)