The suit sought to hold Ghana accountable for failing to investigate his father’s disappearance, who was among 50 West Africans killed by a Gambian paramilitary unit during Yahya Jammeh’s rule in 2005.
The migrants, mainly from Ghana and Nigeria, were reportedly arrested and executed while transiting through The Gambia.
In dismissing the grounds, the Court agreed with the Government of Ghana that the human rights violations complained by the applicant, Isaac Mensah, son of the deceased Peter Mensah, were “committed outside the jurisdiction of Ghana, but in the Republic of the Gambia at a time when the Ghanaian government had neither knowledge nor access to intervene in the matter.”
In a judgment delivered by Justice Edward Amoako Asante, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the Applicants’ claims concerning the Respondent’s alleged failure to investigate the enforced disappearance of Peter Mensah, the alleged violations of the Applicants’ rights to an effective remedy, and the alleged violation of the right to truth.
The Respondent had informed the Court of its various diplomatic efforts, including the 2009 UN/ECOWAS investigation, and expressed its commitment to continuing investigations in light of newly uncovered information.
“This is because all these claims are directly linked to or based on the alleged arrest, detention, and disappearance of Mr. Peter Mensah in The Gambia, rather than in the Respondent State.”
The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over claims by the Applicants regarding the Respondent’s violation of the right to information under Article 9(4) of the Court’s Protocol.
The Applicants argued that the Respondent failed to provide the First Applicant with crucial information, including the 2009 UN/ECOWAS report delivered to Ghana, the pathologist’s report on the bodies returned to Ghana in 2009, and details on the disbursement of funds paid by The Gambia to the families.
In response, the Court directed the Applicant to supply the requested documents to the son of the deceased Ghanaian, specifically the 2009 UN/ECOWAS committee report, the pathologist’s report, a report on the disbursement of funds, and a videotape of the burial ceremonies of the six bodies returned to Ghana.
The Court ruled that the denial of these documents breached the Applicant’s right to information under Article 9(1) of the African Charter and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Additionally, the Court dismissed the second Applicant, a Gambian-based human rights NGO, the Registered Trustees of African Network Against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANKED), noting that the first applicant was already representing himself.
The Court also determined that ANKED could not sue in the public interest as the case lacked the characteristics of a public interest suit.
Furthermore, the Court removed the names of the other 23 Applicants from the initiation application, stating that the First Applicant had not provided evidence of his authority to represent these individuals.
The Court added: “Therefore, those individuals are struck off from the suit, and the First Applicant is deemed to be suing for himself only.”
It also added that “other reliefs sought by the parties which have not been herein granted in whole or in part are hereby dismissed and decided that the parties bear their own costs.”
The panel of three judges for the case also included Justices Gberi be Ouattara and Ricardo Claudio Monteiro Goncalves.
