Arusha – The Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) has formally filed a request for an advisory opinion before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha, Tanzania.
The request seeks to clarify the legal obligations of African states regarding the prosecution of serious human rights violations under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
This legal move aims to address the persistent pattern of impunity for atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity on the continent, PALU Chief Executive Officer Donald Omondi Deya told a press conference on April 29, 2026.
“At first glance, this request may appear to be just a mere technical legal step, but in reality it speaks to a much broader and deeper question and one that has confronted and confounded Africa for decades,” Mr Deya said.
“How do we ensure accountability for the most serious violations of human or people’s rights on the continent?”
The principle of universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute the most serious crimes even when they are committed abroad, by a foreigner, and against foreign victims.
It reflects the idea that certain crimes are so grave that they transcend national borders and concern the international community as a whole.
PALU’s request asks the court to determine whether African states are obliged to prosecute such crimes, if they must cooperate with one another in investigations, and whether they have responsibilities beyond their borders.
Historically, accountability for massive violations in Africa has often depended on the initiative of states outside the continent, principally in Europe.
Courts in countries such as Belgium, France, and Germany have exercised universal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for crimes connected to conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda.
READ MORE: African Court Orders Tanzania to Amend Election, Criminal Justice Laws
PALU argues that African states have made strong commitments to combating impunity under frameworks like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but application remains inconsistent.
A notable exception and a historic precedent for African-led accountability is the case of former Chadian President Hissène Habré. After leaving power, Habré settled in Senegal, where victims of his regime sought justice for acts of torture and other serious violations.
Following a prolonged legal impasse, Belgium sought his extradition, leading to a landmark 2012 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The ICJ clarified that under the Convention Against Torture, Senegal had a legal obligation to either prosecute Habré or extradite him.
This “prosecute or extradite” principle compelled Senegal to act, ultimately leading to the creation of the Extraordinary African Chambers within its court system. Habré was subsequently tried and convicted, demonstrating that accountability could be achieved through African institutions.
READ MORE: Tanzanian Lawyers Bring Election Dispute to East African Court
PALU’s current request is not about creating new law, but rather ensuring that existing legal obligations are understood and implemented consistently across the continent.
The objective is to clarify these responsibilities so that African states can effectively address impunity, PALU says. The African Court is expected to deliberate upon the request in the ensuing months.
The push for universal jurisdiction comes at a time when legal mechanisms are increasingly being tested in Africa.
For instance, the African Court is currently examining a related case involving civil society organisations accusing the government of Mali of hiring foreign mercenaries linked to the killing of more than 500 people.
