September 11, 2026 , Accra - African Services <africanservices@aol.com>
“This ruling highlights a major policy incoherence with AU definition of the Diaspora. . . . If a person does not come from a Member State based or the Diaspora policies, and considers him or herself an African Diaspora, the person cannot be protected because non-African countries are not Members of the AU. The ruling highlights this reality. . . . Most Member States are unlikely to permit unrestricted adoption of AU Diaspora concepts or theories, particularly when these could introduce security vulnerabilities within their borders. As a result, they tend to rely on constitutional principles and formal Diaspora policies as protective frameworks — including diplomatic mechanisms — to manage engagement while minimizing potential risks. The failure of all AU Diaspora Legacy Projects and inability of CIDO or ECOSOCC to generate tangible, evident, financial flow or human sources through its programming make sense once you recognize the structural issue behind them and the policy incoherence between Member State constitutions and practices and AU ideas. . . .There is no country anywhere in the world that uses the AU’s definition of the Diaspora as a basis for constitutional protections, sovereign visions and development. These misconceptions lead to misaligned priorities. . . The ECOSSOC Secretariat violates Article by asking persons to apply through its office, which erodes the transparency required in Article 6 on Membership Eligibility. By controlling the process, it opens avenues for corruption, especially when supposed representatives are not elected by the constituents, and they are made to believe and fear the participation relies on being on the good grace of ECOSOCC gatekeepers.”
SEE:
EMERGENCY! - Urgent Warning to Afrodescendants in the African Diaspora/AU 6th Region From The Afrodescendant Theocratic Special Envoy Extraordinary and Reparations Expert
*********************************************
Landmark Court Ruling Compels Major Fair‑Process Reforms at the African Union ECOSOCC.
Ochuodho v African Union Commission & 11 others (Petition E506 of 2022)
[2026] KEHC 13375 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (1 September 2026) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 13375 (KLR)
The African Union Respondents were:
AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION
ECOSOCC STANDING COMMITEE
ECOSOCC SECRETARIAT.
MOUSSA FAKI MAHAMAT
Dr. Shem Ochuodho, the petitioner amended his petition, and enjoined his government, Kenya, which a Member State of the African Union, as Respondents to the legal proceedings.
They include:
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Kenya).
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Member of the Executive Committee, African Union).
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS.
AMBASSADOR OF KENYA TO THE AFRICAN UNION (Member of the Permanent Representatives Committee, African Union.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Name: ATTORNEY GEORGE ROBERT ASEWE.
At the heart of the petition is the petitioner’s challenge to his suspension from the membership and leadership within the African Union (AU) and its organ, the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC).
The petitioner, Dr. Shem Ochuodho, a Kenyan national, stated that his suspension was in violation of the governing ECOSOCC Statute and Rules of Procedure and in breach of his constitutional rights. He asserts that this suspension was triggered by his involvement in efforts aimed at promoting reforms and accountability within the AU ECOSOCC.
The African Union (AU) is an inter-governmental organization (IGO). IGOs ordinarily possess jurisdictional immunity, restricting legal actions in domestic courts. The landmark ruling means that the immunity is not absolute and, therefore, cannot be a shield against accountability.
Consequently, while the Court cannot exercise direct jurisdiction over the AU or its organs and officials, it ruling affirms its jurisdiction with implications on the case.
On September 1, 2026, the High Court of Kenya in Nairobi, through Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne Ekirapa Aburili, rendered its judgment against the Respondents:
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Kenya).
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Member of the Executive Committee, African Union).
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS.
AMBASSADOR OF KENYA TO THE AFRICAN UNION (Member of the Permanent Representatives Committee, African Union.
The specific ruling:
Petitioner's right to a fair administrative action was violated.
The Respondents failed to address the petitioner's complaint against ECOSOCC through the available Diplomatic Channels.
The court issued a supervisory order of mandamus for the Respondents to develop and operationalize effective administrative mechanisms for receiving and processing complaints lodged by Kenyan citizens working for international or regional organizations, (against those organizations) to which Kenya is a party and which organizations enjoy diplomatic immunity from legal process.
The judgement was served respectively to the following Respondents to take appropriate and necessary actions.
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE RULING.
Even though the court did not adjudicate to make a determination on the substantive merits of the case due to the said immunity, its ruling directs the Kenyan government through the officials to intervene and address the complains within the AU.
The effect of the ruling means that Dr. Shem and his colleagues at the AU ECOSOCC General Assembly were not given the due process to present their complaints, defend the merit of positions, and himself themselves against allegations that they considered retaliative.
Lack of due process is a clear violation of the written ECOSOCC Rules and Procedures.
The ruling recognizes that the due‑process violation is ongoing and cannot be remedied without substantive engagement with the petitioner’s allegations. Thay is why the Kenyan official are required to come up with a plan on receiving and processing complaints.
Note: A writ of mandamus is a court order commanding a government official, agency, or lower court, to perform a duty that the law requires them to perform. It is one of the strongest tools courts have to force government action when an official refuses, delays, or neglects a non‑discretionary legal duty.
That finding necessarily preserves the substance of the underlying complaints. Immunity does not extinguish the complaints against AU ECOSOCC.
By directing the Kenyan government officials to intervene, the court recognized that the due‑process violation is ongoing and cannot be remedied without substantive engagement with the petitioner’s allegations.
Due‑process violation inherently keeps the complaint alive.
And an ongoing violation cannot be cured without:
examining the underlying facts,
evaluating the substance of the complaint,
and identifying a path to redress.
In practical effect, ECOSOCC and the ECOSOCC Secretariat cannot continue to escape from accountability by violating the Rules and Procedures, take actions against those who lodge complaints, act immunity and hide behind intergovernmental immunity.
CIDO serves as the Secretariat of ECOSOCC and CIDO is under the AU Commission.
INTERESTED PARTIES.
Three other persons were equally suspended and listed in the case as interested parties:
ABDURAHAMAN AHMED MOKHTAR, a Libyan national
ROLL STEPHANEN GOMAT, a Gabonese national
EL HACENE MBARECK, a Mauritanian national
Interested parties are not direct parties to the lawsuit. An interested party in a legal case is any person or entity whose rights, obligations, or interests could be affected by the outcome of the case.
Because the judgment is grounded in constitutional protections specific to Kenyan nationals, it does not impose any obligation on the Kenyan government to act on behalf of non‑nationals within an intergovernmental organization.
Nonetheless, interested parties may still benefit indirectly or derivatively from the reforms the judgment is expected to bring about in AU. They may also engage their own governments to intervene on their behalf at the AU level.
CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY AND IMPLICATIONS.
The ruling has generated questions on constitutional, which was decisive in the ruling, and the implications.
The ruling makes one point unmistakably clear: by directing a Member State to intervene to protect the rights of their nationals, it affirms that the African Union and its organs cannot strip any individual of rights guaranteed under a Member State’s national constitution.
The AU is an inter‑governmental organization, not a government, and therefore cannot create or impose conditions that contradict the constitutional laws of Member States.
Another constitutional reality.
The ruling directs the Kenyan to operationalize effective administrative mechanisms for receiving and processing complaints lodged by Kenyan citizens working for international or regional organizations, (against those organizations) to which Kenya is a party and which organizations enjoy diplomatic immunity from legal process.
This logically resulted inquiries on Diaspora based on the implications of the ruling because people work in different parts of the world in inter-governmental organizations.
So, it is necessary to make clarifications.
The determination of who qualifies as a Diasporan resident ultimately rests with each Member State according to its own national laws, not with any AU‑level definition.
Therefore, Member States are responsible for only their nationals. The Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Embassies are instructed on Diasporan Affairs.
Member States diasporan population consists of persons of origin from their countries, including those born in the diaspora, living outside their countries and also within other African countries. Member States recognize this reality and formally include the population within their legal frameworks. There are many ways to become a citizen of a country. People can check with the law.
This ruling highlights a major policy incoherence with AU definition of the Diaspora.
Member States do not create conditions - ability or wiliness to contribute to test - to define who is a Diasporan resident in order to protect their rights.
If a person does not come from a Member State based or the Diaspora policies, and considers him or herself an African Diaspora, the person cannot be protected because non-African countries are not Members of the AU. The ruling highlights this reality.
For example, the United States, Canadian, European, Caribbean, South American, Asian countries cannot intervene within AU structures.
So, the short answer is no, a person from a non-Member State cannot expect intervention to protect his or her constitutional right at the AU.
Other inquiries involved participation.
It is an individual decision for anyone to be engaged and within the law and regulations of the countries. The ruling only deals with constitutionality.
Most Member States are unlikely to permit unrestricted adoption of AU Diaspora concepts or theories, particularly when these could introduce security vulnerabilities within their borders. As a result, they tend to rely on constitutional principles and formal Diaspora policies as protective frameworks — including diplomatic mechanisms — to manage engagement while minimizing potential risks.
The failure of all AU Diaspora Legacy Projects and inability of CIDO or ECOSOCC to generate tangible, evident, financial flow or human sources through its programming make sense once you recognize the structural issue behind them and the policy incoherence between Member State constitutions and practices and AU ideas.
AU definition of the Diaspora is based on assumptions, not on migration data or evidence of formations, their predicable patterns and actual contributions in Member States.
There is no country anywhere in the world that uses the AU’s definition of the Diaspora as a basis for constitutional protections, sovereign visions and development. These misconceptions lead to misaligned priorities.
The ruling reflects the superiority of national laws.
REACTIONS BY PETITIONER, INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE CASE, AND RESPONSES ACROSS MEMBERS OF THE AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY.
This lesson in this case is very important and historic in many respects. Among the lessons, if someone rights are violated in AU ECOSOCC, he or she may have no choice but to sue in their own national courts and include their governments in the legal proceedings as Respondents.
It will now require Member States in the respective organs to pay close attention, exercise their own dule diligence, and not take anything coming from the AU ECOSOCC or the ECOSOCC Secretariat at face value.
It is exactly why urgent and real reforms are needed.
Dr. Shem Ochuodho, the petitioner, is well known in Kenya and for his East African advocacy with regional authorities.
Dr. Shem was in court when the verdict was read. He hailed the ruling as historic. He expressed confidence in his government's ability to comply with the court's directives.
The ruling has been defined by Dr. Shem, civil his colleagues who are listed as interested parties, and community leaders, as a pivotal moment for African civil society, which includes nationals of Member States living within their countries and out of their countries in the Diaspora. They are urging activists to work together to champion reforms because the outcomes are of benefits to Africans who must not be intimidated to be remain silent.
"It is a wake-up call to demand real reforms at the AU," said Oluchi, a Nigerian, who prefer to use her first name, in expressing outrage that her country is paying dues to fund the AU, which is not reforming itself.
A common reaction across communities raises questions on why AU organs can be threatened by strong independent voices whom they find ways to frameup, malign and smear, and weaponize the legal counsel's office to achieve their goals.
Many civil society members who reacted to the news know very little or nothing about the AU in general or about ECOSOCC specifically.
When people learn about the AU through lawsuits, including a history of vindictively shutting down dissent and issuing damaging public notices without giving the targeted persons a chance to be heard and to defend themselves, [Siphiwe note: this happened to me- see here and here] it only reinforces what the AU’s own studies have already shown: many African citizens feel the AU has limited relevance to their lives.
Former ECOSOCC members who can speak without fear, and current members who remain silent out of fear of retaliation, agree on the unmistakable truth: an independent, courageous voice is always seen as in organ as problematic in a place where the Secretariat dominates, and the Presiding Officer does and signs what the Secretariat without says.
This abnormal reverse of roles has frustrated and suffocated the very autonomy ECOSOCC was created to embody - to represent the aspiration of the civil society and not as another bureaucratic department.
By law, AU ECOSOCC is expected to respond to the AU Executive Council, not to an administrative department head of another organ.
Only firm intervention from Member States through the AU Executive Council can legality, order, and credibility be restored at the ECOSOCC.
Without such action, the organ will continue to repel the knowledgeable, principled, and fearless voices in the African civil society at ECOSOCC, which desperately needs the assets.
ECOSOCC should be an organ where strong civic leadership is not punished—but empowered.
ECOSOCC should be a place where representative voices, including from the Diaspora, are connected to their member states and regions to authentically connect with civic society at grassroots levels to generate continent-wide developments.[Siphiwe note: What about Afrodescendants who,by virtue of the gravest crime against humanity, have been cut off from their member states…. ?]
People recalled when Kenyan Nobel prizewinner, Professor Wangari Maathai, was elected as the Interim Presiding Officer. Speaking at the launch of ECOSOCC in 2005, at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the then AU Commission Chairperson and former Malian president Alpha Oumar Konare said the occasion represented a historic opportunity for African civil society.
"This African Union is a union of African peoples," Konare asserted. "We can never build a real, genuine democracy - if we isolate ourselves from the real participation of the ordinary citizens."
The first Permanent ECOSOCC’ General Assembly was officially launched in Dar es Salaam on September 9, 2008, by the then Chairperson of African Union and then President of Tanzania, H.E. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete. Barrister Akere Muna from Cameroon was the Presiding Officer.
"ECOSOCC was a respectable place when the caliber of Presiding Officers set agenda and cannot be dictated to by the Secretariat. Years later, the ECOSOCC Secretariat writes for the ECOSOCC Presiding Office to sign. The ECOSOCC Secretariat brings the legal counsel to the General Assembly to give approval to irregularities," said a former ECOSOCC member who recalled the different standards used on the same issue based on favoritism.
"If it took a lawsuit for the AU Executive Council to finally know how ECOSOCC is operated in clear violation of its own rules and the AU constitution, that was supposed to happen," said a public official who demanded anonymity to speak freely about abuses at the AU that often go unaddressed.
Dr. Shem pointed out that the current Chairperson of the AU Commission and current Director of CIDO were not in office when corrupt practices occurred. The current Presiding Officer were not in office when the lawsuit was filed.
WHAT MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE ASKING. WHAT IS ECOSOOC AND WHY WAS THE LAWSUIT NECESSARY?
Article 22 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union established the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC):
1. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council shall be an advisory organ composed of different social and professional groups of the Member States of the Union.
2. The functions, powers, composition and organization of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council shall be determined by the Assembly.
For years, AU ECOSOCC has consistently violated its statutes, including Article 5 on Election of Members that requires the oversight of competent jurisdictional authorities.
Competent CSO authorities in each Member State shall establish a consultation process, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of these Statutes, for the purpose of determining modalities for election, of two (2) CSOs to the ECOSOCC General Assembly;
Regional and continental CSOs shall establish an appropriate consultative process to determine modalities for election and elect eighteen (18) CSOs to the ECOSOCC General Assembly.
African Diaspora organizations shall establish an appropriate process for determining modalities for elections and elect twenty (20) CSOs to the ECOSOCC General Assembly.
The ECOSOCC Secretariat creates confusion around the need for competent national, regional, continental, and Diaspora authorities. The need carries significant sovereign responsibilities towards their constituents and also protections. The ruling demonstrates the need.
The ECOSOCC Secretariat is not a competent authority in Member States, in Regional Economic Communities, Continent-wide, in the Diaspora to determine Member State organizations, their social and professional groups anywhere.
The ECOSSOC Secretariat violates Article by asking persons to apply through its office, which erodes the transparency required in Article 6 on Membership Eligibility.
By controlling the process, it opens avenues for corruption, especially when supposed representatives are not elected by the constituents, and they are made to believe and fear the participation relies on being on the good grace of ECOSOCC gatekeepers.
Article 17 describes the functions of the ECOSOCC Secretariat as one of facilitating, providing support, coordination, and assisting. These limitations have been violated. The ECOSOCC Secretariat transformed to be driving the decisions of the organ, including its budget and spending. The usurped functions were not determined by the General Assembly of the African Heads of State or approved by the AU Executive by any cited decision.
This ruling demonstrates the need for competent authorities to proactively ensure the rules are followed.
ECOSOCC's budget is funded primarily by the assessed contributions of Member States. The citizens reserve the right to know how their countries' funds are spent at the AU.
When courageous ECOSOCC members demand to know how monies are spent, how contracts are awarded, how hotels are booked, and who crafted the annual budgets to begin with, and all the complaints they presented, they are speaking for the African civil society. That is their function and not to rubber stamp decisions.
Yet, call for vital accountability is discouraged, scorned, or punished, which creates a chilling effect on members and civil society.
The lawlessness and corrupt practices presented mostly occurred during the tenure of the former AU Commission Chairperson, Faki Moussa Mahamat named as a Respondent. The violations are currently normalized by William Carew, the current head of the ECOSOCC Secretariat.
THE OPPORTUNITY THE HISTORIC RULING PRESENTS.
In the Kagame Report on AU institutional Reform titled the “IMPERATIVE TO STRENGTHEN OUR UNION” one of the cores findings relates to the disengagement of the African citizens from the AU.
The report explicitly identifies a “perception of limited relevance to African citizens” as a major weakness. Unfortunately, ECOSOCC is a reflection of the major weaknesses of the AU.
This ruling should be a turning point. It opens the door for citizens of all Member States—both at home and across the diaspora—to work together toward building a truly representative, transparent, and accountable organ to close relevance gap in ECOSSOC. Outcomes must demonstrate visible, meaningful impact across Member States, not just travels.
Addressing facts is not bringing disrepute to the AU but a conscience call to address the very reforms by articulating the dubious practices at ECOSOCC, which bring no value to Member States. It is a principled stance. Silence protects dysfunction, not reputation. Transparency builds legitimacy. Constructive critique is a civic duty, not an attack or disruption.
Only through genuine and sustained engagement of African citizens can the AU’s aspiration of an integrated, prosperous, and peaceful continent, driven by its own people and projecting a dynamic force in the global arena be realized.
Based on the judgment rendered, Mr. Mokhtar who had served in different leadership positions at the AU ECOSOCC, reiterated calls for the need for a strategic roadmap involves African Citizen Mobilization & Advocacy and Supporting the Kenyan government's efforts.
Member State Outreach: Conduct high-level briefings with Foreign Ministries to highlight procedural improprieties, jurisdictional defects and the illegality of the decisions that resulted in the lawsuit.
Mobilizing resources to support citizen engagements with national and regional impacts and active engagements to foster an AU driven by its citizens.