The decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) in Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin attempts to mitigate the human rights crisis in the West African country. The court halted the undemocratic and tyrannical amendments to the constitution and the revised electoral codes, made at the behest of President Patrick Talon.
The revised electoral process mandates political parties pay 249 million CFA Francs to contest an election. In recent municipal elections, only seven, out of 77, seats were won by the opposition. Amid fierce protests by the opposition, the ruling party swept the polls that had a deciding effect on the upcoming presidential elections. Furthermore, article 44 of the revised constitution requires presidential and vice presidential candidates to be endorsed by at least 16 parliamentarians. Unsurprisingly, the national assembly at present comprises solely the members of the ruling party. Though Talon was re-elected through these shams, his tactics symbolise oppression and totalitarianism. Such unprecedented turmoil persuaded the African Court to settle the most complicated human rights questions of the day.
HOUNGUE NOUDEHOUENOU, A POLITICAL RIVAL
Houngue Noudehouenou, a political rival of President Talon, challenged the validity of the revised electoral process and constitutional revision in court. When he voiced his opposition to new rules, he was arrested, convicted, and later sentenced by a court on a spurious charge of embezzling public funds. Challenging his arrest, he contended that his right to association and participation, guaranteed under article 13 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), was violated by unsubstantiated actions against him. The African Court accepted his argument and held him eligible for contesting elections.
It was submitted that article 153-1 of the revised Constitution of Benin excludes from participation in public affairs any citizen who does not belong to a political party. Citizens can vote only for candidates who are chosen by political parties, and these parties must pay huge amounts of money to the body conducting elections to be registered. The court found this practice in violation of the Constitution and article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The court asserted that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), assuring “freedom of opinion and expression,” should be applied in principle. The most striking finding of the court was that it declared the method of constitutional revision invalid. The court said that in a democracy like Benin “national consensus” is of paramount importance and must be attributed maximum respect.
THE DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY
The repressive policies of the Talon regime have decimated the morals of arguably the finest democracy in Africa. Since its inception, the Talon government has curbed fundamental freedoms by imprisoning oppositional leaders and protesting citizens. Some experts have called Talon’s victory a “coup” of authoritarianism over democracy. The country is now facing its worst human rights crisis. It has become a typical case of the executive takeover of the legislature and the consequent paralysis of the elections. The issue concerns the global audience, as it is another instance of using “legal methods” to do what cannot be done muscularly in order to protect global image. This method has been used multiple times in history, and Talon acted in line with every archetypal autocrat.
However, fortunately for Benin, the African Court rose to the plate and thwarted Talon’s unscrupulous agenda. While Houngue relied majorly on the constitutional breakdown, the court centered its judgment on international human rights jurisprudence. It made an attempt to identify and order human freedoms rather than adjudicating jurisdictional issues. Strikingly, the court regarded the ICCPR and UDHR on par with the African Charter. It indicated that any bogus attempt to delegitimise civil liberties, even if done in disguise, shall meet rebuttal from international standards on human rights. The judgment addresses the general citizenry, calling on them not to simply lay their liberties at the feet of the state. The African Court should be applauded for its courage, integrity, and resilience. If implemented in its true wisdom, the Houngue decision could revitalise democracy in Benin.
Anirudh is a third year Law student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She is interested in intellectual property and commercial law.
Ayushi is a third year student currently pursuing Law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. Her interests lies in Constitutional Law, Human Rights, and Public policy