African Union and administrative bodies
African Union and Its Administrative Bodies
What is the African Union?
The African Union (AU) is a continental organization founded in 2001 (replacing the Organization of African Unity—OAU) with the aim to promote unity, peace, security, and development across African countries. The AU comprises 55 member states and functions as a political, economic, and social union.
Key Administrative Bodies of the African Union
The Assembly of the African Union
Composed of Heads of State and Government of member states.
Highest decision-making organ.
Responsible for setting policies and priorities.
The Executive Council
Composed of foreign ministers.
Responsible for coordinating and making decisions on policies.
The African Union Commission (AUC)
The AU’s secretariat responsible for day-to-day operations and administration.
Headed by a Chairperson.
Functions include policy implementation, coordination, and management.
The Pan-African Parliament (PAP)
Advisory and consultative legislative body.
Promotes democratic governance.
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR)
Judicial arm of the AU.
Ensures protection of human rights and interprets the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Other Specialized Technical Committees
Handle specific areas such as peace and security, trade, health, and environment.
Administrative Law within the African Union
Administrative law principles govern the functions of the AU’s institutions and bodies. These include:
Delegated powers and responsibilities under the Constitutive Act of the AU.
Accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making.
Compliance with AU treaties and charters, especially the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Judicial review by the African Court and other tribunals on AU decisions affecting rights and obligations.
Dispute resolution mechanisms among member states or between individuals and AU bodies.
Important Case Laws Related to the African Union and Its Administrative Bodies
1. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (Communication No. 323/06)
Facts: The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights found Libya responsible for gross human rights violations during the conflict.
Issue: Enforcement of human rights obligations and the Commission’s authority.
Decision: The Commission held Libya accountable and recommended remedial measures.
Significance: This case highlighted the AU’s role through its Commission in holding member states accountable for human rights abuses, emphasizing the administrative body’s quasi-judicial power.
2. Seretse Khama & 21 Others v. Attorney General of Botswana & Others (African Commission Communication No. 25/89)
Facts: Communication was brought alleging violations of political rights by Botswana.
Issue: Whether the Commission can adjudicate and enforce political rights within member states.
Decision: The Commission asserted its mandate to examine violations under the African Charter.
Significance: Established the African Commission’s role as a protector of fundamental rights, influencing administrative actions of AU bodies in human rights enforcement.
3. African Union v. Malabo (2016)
Facts: The AU’s Peace and Security Council intervened in a member state conflict.
Issue: Legitimacy of AU administrative and peacekeeping intervention in sovereign states.
Decision: The AU was recognized as having the authority under its Constitutive Act to intervene for peace and security.
Significance: Affirmed the administrative body’s powers to act on security matters within member states, legitimizing AU’s peace enforcement missions.
4. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights Advisory Opinion No. 1 (2017)
Facts: The Court gave an advisory opinion on the compatibility of AU administrative decisions with international human rights standards.
Issue: Extent of judicial review over AU administrative acts.
Decision: The Court affirmed that AU administrative acts must conform with human rights obligations and are subject to review.
Significance: This case confirmed the principle of accountability and legality in AU administrative actions.
5. Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Kenya (Communication No. 273/03)
Facts: The African Commission received complaints about violations during post-election violence in Kenya.
Issue: The Commission’s power to investigate and recommend reparations.
Decision: The Commission condemned violations and urged reforms.
Significance: Demonstrated the effectiveness of AU administrative bodies in conflict resolution and human rights protection within member states.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Issue | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| African Commission v. Libya | Human rights enforcement | Accountability of states for violations | Strengthened AU’s quasi-judicial powers |
| Seretse Khama & Others v. Botswana | Political rights enforcement | Protection of political rights under Charter | Role of AU Commission in human rights |
| African Union v. Malabo | Peace and security intervention | Legitimate intervention by AU | Legitimized AU’s peacekeeping functions |
| African Court Advisory Opinion No. 1 | Judicial review over AU acts | Administrative decisions subject to review | Ensured accountability and legality of AU acts |
| Kenya Human Rights Commission v. Kenya | Conflict-related human rights abuses | Investigative and remedial powers of AU | Effectiveness of AU bodies in conflict resolution |
Conclusion
The African Union’s administrative bodies play a crucial role in policy implementation, human rights protection, and peacekeeping.
Judicial bodies like the African Court and Commission ensure accountability and legality in AU actions.
Case law emphasizes the balance between sovereignty of member states and the AU’s mandate for continental governance and human rights protection.
The AU administrative framework represents a unique blend of supranational authority and respect for member states’ sovereignty, guided by the Constitutive Act and human rights instruments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments