EACJ: Member State Compliance Challenges Highlighted at 25th Anniversary

• The East African Court of Justice marked its 25th anniversary, highlighting member state compliance and funding as key challenges.
• EACJ President Nestor Kayobera stressed that the court's authority relies on both judgment quality and effective implementation by member states.
• Rwanda's Minister of Justice, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, proposed a reporting mechanism to track judgment compliance and a sustainable funding model for the court.
• A two-month limitation period in the EAC Treaty for bringing actions is under review, with a proposed extension to six months.
• Despite 25 years, the EACJ still lacks a permanent seat, operating from a temporary location in Arusha, Tanzania.

Compliance is indispensable for upholding the rule of law, maintaining public trust, and preserving the integrity of the Community's legal framework.

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) recently commemorated its 25th anniversary on Thursday, November 12, with a gathering at the East African Community Headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. The event brought together government and judicial officials, legal professionals, and other regional stakeholders to reflect on the court's journey and strategize for its future. A central theme of the discussions, titled "Fromation to Future," highlighted significant challenges facing the institution, primarily concerning member states' adherence to and enforcement of its rulings, alongside persistent funding difficulties.

EACJ President Nestor Kayobera underscored the court's vital role in clarifying partner states' obligations and promoting principles of legality, accountability, and sound governance within the Community through its jurisprudence. However, he emphasized that the court's authority hinges not only on the quality of its judgments but critically on their effective implementation. Compliance is indispensable for upholding the rule of law, maintaining public trust, and preserving the integrity of the Community's legal framework.

The issue of EACJ member state compliance challenges was a prominent point of discussion, with President Kayobera noting that Article 38 of the Treaty already provides a framework for addressing the implementation of the court's decisions. He advocated for strengthened implementation through sustained cooperation among partner states and relevant community institutions, supported by clear responsibilities and effective follow-up mechanisms. Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, Rwanda's Minister of Justice and Attorney General and a former EACJ president, proposed a concrete step: establishing a reporting mechanism. He explained that such a system would track compliance with judgments, as states are sometimes unaware of rulings against them, with only their legal representatives typically involved in the court proceedings. This mechanism would involve annual reports detailing decided matters and their enforcement status, similar to practices in other jurisdictions.

Beyond enforcement, the gathering also addressed procedural limitations within the EAC Treaty itself. Ugirashebuja highlighted the existing two-month limitation period for bringing an action concerning a breach of the Treaty. If a litigant files a suit beyond two months from the alleged breach, the court is currently unable to rule on the case. He argued that amending this provision would significantly enhance the court's jurisprudence, suggesting an extension of the time limit to six months as a more reasonable timeframe.

EACJ funding challenges emerged as another critical area requiring immediate attention. Minister Ugirashebuja, reflecting on the broader financing of the East African Community, specifically called for a sustainable funding mechanism for all Community organs, including the East African Court of Justice. He cited the Caribbean Court of Justice as a potential model, where member states contributed approximately $100 million for investment, with the proceeds then used to finance the court's operations. This approach aims to ensure financial independence and stability.

Furthermore, the discussion touched upon the need to empower judges and other staff to effectively manage the increasing complexity of cases. Ugirashebuja noted the court's growth, from its inception in 2001 with the first case appearing four years later, to now handling 1,000 cases—a considerable achievement. President Kayobera also pointed out a significant institutional concern: despite celebrating its EACJ 25th anniversary, the court still operates from a temporary seat in Arusha. He urged political leaders to address this long-standing issue and secure a permanent home for the institution.

The discussions at the EACJ 25th anniversary underscored the critical juncture for the court as it looks to its next quarter-century. The ability of the East African Court of Justice to effectively serve its mandate hinges on resolving these fundamental issues. Ensuring robust EACJ judgment enforcement is paramount for maintaining the rule of law and public confidence in the regional legal order. The proposed EACJ treaty amendment regarding the limitation period, if adopted, would broaden access to justice and allow the court to adjudicate a wider range of disputes, thereby strengthening its jurisprudence.

Addressing the EACJ funding challenges through innovative and sustainable mechanisms is essential for the court's operational independence and capacity to handle its growing caseload. The call for a permanent seat reflects a broader need for institutional stability and recognition commensurate with its importance. These ongoing challenges with EACJ member state compliance challenges and institutional support highlight the need for concerted efforts from all stakeholders to ensure the court can continue to advance legality, accountability, and good governance across the African Community.

Lawyers advising on litigation before the EACJ must consider the ongoing challenges with member state compliance and enforcement of judgments, which could impact the practical efficacy of a favorable ruling. Furthermore, the discussion around amending the two-month limitation period in the EAC Treaty signals potential future changes to procedural timelines for bringing actions.

Source: Original reporting via regional news reports