Good morning Mr/madam President, honorable

members of the court, my name is Mr. Firew

Kasaye and together with my co-agent Mr. Nuru

Beyene we represent the respondent in this matter.

The Republic of Kuntakinte.

Today in our time before this honorable court, my

colleague and I will respond to the four issues

presented by the applicant. I will respond to the

issues jurisdiction, admissibility and issues of

detainees at PDF within the first 16 minutes and

Mr. Nuru will respond to the issues of National

Union of Gay and Lesbians and trokosi custom and

will submit finally prayer for relief within the

remaining 14 minutes.
If it may please the Court, I would like to

start with our first claim.

The Respondent submits that by virtue of

Article 1 of the Court Protocol, the

jurisdiction and functioning of the Court

shall be governed by the Court Protocol.

And pursuant to article 26 of VCLT Every

treaty in force is binding upon the parties to

it.
However, in the instant case, The

Respondent has withdrawn from the Court

Protocol by parliamentary enactment of the

African Court Protocol Renunciation Act on

17 May 2016 and it is not more party to the

protocol. The respondent submits that, the

nature of the court protocol indicates that

states become party to such Protocol freely

and thus the Respondent contends that they

should also denounce freely pursuant to

article 56(1) (b).

However, the Respondent also submits the

may decide on its jurisdiction as per article

3(2) of African Court Protocol.

With regard to the admissibility, as per

article 6(2) of the court protocol

Admissibility of communications before

this Court is determined pursuant to Article

56 of the African Charter which sets out

seven cumulative requirements of which the

respondent has contention on the exhaustion

of local remedies.
Your excellences, Article 56(5) of the

African Charter stipulates that

communications shall be considered, if they

are sent after exhausting local remedies. In

this respect the commission in Monin

Elgak and another v Sudan has stated that

the complainants are required to exhaust

local remedies pursuant to the substantive

and procedural laws of the concerned state.

Regarding PDF detainees, RWB failed to

exhaust the available remedy before the

Supreme Court for the mere fact that the

supreme court has previously rejected the

same cases. Your honour, the claim of

NUGAL involves constitutional issues and

as clearly indicated under paragragh 6 of

the fact, supreme court has jurisdiction over

constitutional issues and RWB should have

approched supreme court.

In this respect in Agnuak Justice v Ethiopia

,the African commission has noted that, If a

P 58

remedy has the slightest likelihood to be

effective, the applicant must pursue it. And

arguing that local remedies are not likely

to be successful, without trying to avail

oneself of them will not persuade the

Commission.
Similarly, the claim of NUGAL still

pending before the High court. In Civil

Liberties Organization v. Nigeria, the

African Commission declined to consider a

Communication with respect to which a

claim had been filed but not yet settled by

the courts of the respondent state. The

Respondent requests this court for same.

Additionally, the trokosi issue was brought

before this Court without approaching any

domestic court. Your honors, according to

the jurisprudences of the African

Serac

commission in SERAC v Nigeria The

principle of exhaustion of local remedies is

meant to give the domestic court an

opportunity to decide upon cases before

they are brought to an international forum

and the court should not used as a court of

first instance. Thus if applicant of the view

that the measure of government is

insufficient, it should have approached local

courts for further.

Therefore, the respondents requests this

honorable court to declare this

communication inadmissible for not

meeting the requirement of Article 56(5) of

the African Charter.

If it may please the court I would like to

proceed to our submission on the second

issue
With respect to Detainees at pdf, the

respondent submits that there is no

violation of the African charter and other

treaties with respect to circumstances

leading to the detention of suspected

members of Young Panther Group and the

conditions under which they are detained.

Your excellences, The right to liberty of person is

guaranteed by the African Charter and ICCPR.

However, this right is not unfetered right since it

can be restricted for reasons and conditions

prescribed by law and for reasons of legitimate

state interest and national security.

In instant case, the Respondent has a legitimate

interest to protect its citizen from any acts of

terrorism and to cooperate with other states in

fighting against terrorism and in fact an

obligation take appropriate measures before

granting refugee status, for the purpose of

ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not

participated in terrorist acts.

Thus, the Respondent contends that it has

no legal obligation to provide asylum for

those individuals who are suspected

members of Young Panther group and also

contends that it has showed its commitment

to fulfill its obligation toward refugees by

accepting and settling about 100, 000

refugees from the same region at the same

time while the arrested individuals were

only 700 hundred of them.

Thus, the Respondent submits that its measure is

justified and inline with its obligation under the

African Charter and other treaties.

With regard to fair trial rights of the

detainees, The Respondent is mindful that

an arrested person has the right to be

informed of the reasons for his arrest and

any charges against him and have the right

to speedy trial as stipulated under Arts 6 &

7(1)(d) African Charter, & Arts 9(2) & (3)

& 14(2)(c) of ICCPR.

But your excellences in the instant case, the

arrest and detention of suspected members

of the Young group is preventive detention

in order to safeguard national security and

the well-being of its citizens.

According to International Commission of

Jurists, preventive detention means:

The deprivation of a persons liberty,

whether by order of the Head of State or of

any executive authority, civil or military,

for the purposes of safeguarding national

security or public order, or other similar

purposes, without that person being

charged or brought to trial.

Your honors according to general comment

8 of UNHRC, this method of detention is

also a permissible deprivation of liberty

under the ICCPR.

Your honors, as I have mentioned it before

,By definition such detention occurs

without charge and without affording the

detainees the opportunity of trial before a

competent court. Accordingly, the

respondent argues that there is no violation

of the right to be brought promptly before a

judge nor a right to trial within a reasonable

time or to release pending trial.

With regard to the detention of suspected

members of Young Panthers for six and

fifteen months without being tried, the

Respondent submits that due to the nature

preventive detention and as also supported by

scholars, preventive detention can lawfully

occur for a prolonged period without the

prospect of any trial within a reasonable time.

Further, there is no violation of the right of

detainees to be informed of the reason for

arrest since the suspects were sufficiently

informed the reason for their arrest.

With regard to trial of the detainees by

general court martial, the respondent submit

that, it is mindful that the purpose of

military court is to try offence of military

nature committed by the military person.

But in exceptional cases, as held by the UN

Human Rights Committee, the trial of

civilians by military court may be

unavoidable where resorting to such trials is

necessary and justified.

The Respondent submits that the nature of

terrorist crime makes it impossible to prove

cases by using normal evidentiary rules.

Further, state practices show that terrorist

suspects are tried before military court as

the nature of the crime threatens national

security and peace order.

The Respondent also argues that martial

courts are duly established by law and

prosecution before military court are

designated by the Attorney-General of

Kuntakinte. Thus, its impartiality and

independence is not questionable. In

addition, where they are convicted there is a

possibility to seize the Supreme Court that

has a final say on all matters.

Finally, the respondent argues that an

allegation of torture are basically originated

from an undercover journalist overheard an

army officer at a bar, a place where people

use alcohol, get intoxicated, lose their

memory and then make speech without

understanding its content during drinking

episode. Which is unworthy to consider.

In addition, stress, anxiety and depression

are unavoidable behavior in prison that

most prisoners manifest out of the pain of

imprisonment.
Finally, the respondent argues that an

allegation of torture are basically originated

from an undercover journalist overheard an

army officer at a bar, a place where people

use alcohol, get intoxicated, and it is

synthetically proved that individuals lose

their memory and then make speech

without understanding its content during

drinking episode. Which is unworthy to consider.

In addition, stress, anxiety and depression

are unavoidable behavior in prison that

most prisoners manifest out of the pain of

imprisonment.

Thus, the respondent submits that The

Manifestation of such behavior in prison

and reports from media and NGO cant

conclusively indicate that the prisoner are

tortured or inhumanely treated

More importantly your excelencies the

respondent did not remain silent after after

medias report the statement of senior army

officer, rather it has introduced legal and

administrative measures against alleged

perpetrator and the case is pending

investigation. Thus, the respondent submit

that there is no violation the rights of

detanees
Regarding the rights of migrants, the

respondents submits that the migrants are

allowed to stay in the respondent and the

responden only requerd them to legalise

their stay and get work and resident permist

like any other states in the world and the

migrants are aslo have aduty to comply with

the laws and regulations of the receiving

state as per article 3(1) OAU refugee

convention.
With regard to the nationality issues of the

migrants children, the possibility exists for

childrens to become citizens through

naturalisation according to the procedures

of respondents nationality act. And in fact

this is easy for them since they are born in

the respondent state.

Mr/Madam President, This concludes

my submission and "I would like to

thank you for your attention and I

now turn over to my co-agent. Thank

you very much for your kind

attention.