UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCP4807: International Pro-
tection of Human Rights
Assignment 2 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCP4807
Module Code:
International Protection of Human Rights
Module Name:
Legal opinion for PAHRO: procedural and
Essay Topic:
substantive analysis of the Nhamo family
and Eshlahleni community communication
before the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights
Assignment 2
Assignment Number:
As per myUnisa
Unique Number:
08 September 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for LCP4807, UNISA 2026
,UNISA | LCP4807 Legal Opinion: Nhamo Family v Republic of Masaala
Instructions and Scope of this Opinion
Pan-Afrikan Human Rights Organisation (PAHRO) has requested a legal opinion on whether
Mr Nhamo, his wife Tambudzai, and their two minor daughters, together with the wider com-
munity of Eshlahleni, can pursue a communication before the African Commission on Hu-
man and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) against the Republic of Masaala, and on the
strength of that communication once lodged. Eshlahleni has, for an extended period, gone
without clean drinking water, functioning healthcare facilities, adequate schooling, passable
roads and adequate housing. The Nhamo family and other residents pursued this grievance
through the domestic courts for more than ten years, culminating in a Constitutional Court
judgment that confirmed the lower courts’ findings and accepted the government’s justifica-
tion that budgetary constraints excused the continued absence of these services.
Masaala has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and its Optional Protocol, the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter), the Protocol to the African
Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol), and the Protocol to the
African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(the Court Protocol), but has not deposited a declaration under article 34(6) of the Court
Protocol. This opinion addresses, in turn, the procedural admissibility of a communication,
the substantive rights implicated by the cumulative deprivation of water, health, education,
road infrastructure and housing, the legal weight of the state’s resource-based defence, and
the remedies realistically available.
Page 2 of 19
, UNISA | LCP4807 Legal Opinion: Nhamo Family v Republic of Masaala
1. Procedural Issues Before the African Commission
1.1 The Correct Forum: Commission, not Court
Masaala has ratified the Court Protocol but has not made the article 34(6) declaration. Con-
sequently PAHRO, even as an organisation with observer status, cannot lodge an application
directly with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights against Masaala.1 Individuals
and NGOs in states that have not made the declaration must channel their grievance through
the Commission, which may, at its own discretion after considering the communication, refer
the matter to the Court under article 5(1)(a) of the Court Protocol.2 The correct and, at this
stage, the only available avenue is therefore an article 55 communication to the Commission.
1.2 Locus Standi and Representation by PAHRO
Article 55 of the Charter, read with rule 115 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure (2020),
permits any natural or legal person to submit a communication, and expressly does not re-
quire the complainant to be a national or resident of the respondent state, nor to be the victim
personally.3 PAHRO may accordingly submit the communication on behalf of the Nhamo fam-
ily, provided the family’s consent and identity are placed on record, since the Commission
historically permits organisations acting in the public interest or on behalf of named victims to
be seized of a matter without the personal appearance of the victims themselves.
Because the deprivation described extends beyond the Nhamo household to the wider Esh-
lahleni community, PAHRO is not confined to framing the communication narrowly around
one family. The Commission has recognised a form of actio popularis under the Charter, per-
mitting a complainant to bring a communication in the public interest on behalf of a broader
group of victims without needing to identify each affected individual by name.4 PAHRO should
accordingly draft the communication to reflect both the Nhamo family’s individual circum-
stances and the pattern of deprivation affecting Eshlahleni as a community, since the cu-
mulative and community-wide character of the failure is itself part of the evidence that the
deprivation is systemic rather than incidental.
1
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998) art 34(6), read with art 5(3).
2
African Court Coalition, Ratification and Declaration ⟨https://africancourtcoalition.org/ratification-declaration/⟩
accessed 10 August 2026.
3
Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2020) r 115; Purohit and
Moore v The Gambia Communication 241/2001 (2003) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2003) para 1–12.
4
SERAC v Nigeria (n 5) para 49, recognising actio popularis standing under the African Charter.
Page 3 of 19
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCP4807: International Pro-
tection of Human Rights
Assignment 2 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCP4807
Module Code:
International Protection of Human Rights
Module Name:
Legal opinion for PAHRO: procedural and
Essay Topic:
substantive analysis of the Nhamo family
and Eshlahleni community communication
before the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights
Assignment 2
Assignment Number:
As per myUnisa
Unique Number:
08 September 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for LCP4807, UNISA 2026
,UNISA | LCP4807 Legal Opinion: Nhamo Family v Republic of Masaala
Instructions and Scope of this Opinion
Pan-Afrikan Human Rights Organisation (PAHRO) has requested a legal opinion on whether
Mr Nhamo, his wife Tambudzai, and their two minor daughters, together with the wider com-
munity of Eshlahleni, can pursue a communication before the African Commission on Hu-
man and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) against the Republic of Masaala, and on the
strength of that communication once lodged. Eshlahleni has, for an extended period, gone
without clean drinking water, functioning healthcare facilities, adequate schooling, passable
roads and adequate housing. The Nhamo family and other residents pursued this grievance
through the domestic courts for more than ten years, culminating in a Constitutional Court
judgment that confirmed the lower courts’ findings and accepted the government’s justifica-
tion that budgetary constraints excused the continued absence of these services.
Masaala has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and its Optional Protocol, the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter), the Protocol to the African
Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol), and the Protocol to the
African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(the Court Protocol), but has not deposited a declaration under article 34(6) of the Court
Protocol. This opinion addresses, in turn, the procedural admissibility of a communication,
the substantive rights implicated by the cumulative deprivation of water, health, education,
road infrastructure and housing, the legal weight of the state’s resource-based defence, and
the remedies realistically available.
Page 2 of 19
, UNISA | LCP4807 Legal Opinion: Nhamo Family v Republic of Masaala
1. Procedural Issues Before the African Commission
1.1 The Correct Forum: Commission, not Court
Masaala has ratified the Court Protocol but has not made the article 34(6) declaration. Con-
sequently PAHRO, even as an organisation with observer status, cannot lodge an application
directly with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights against Masaala.1 Individuals
and NGOs in states that have not made the declaration must channel their grievance through
the Commission, which may, at its own discretion after considering the communication, refer
the matter to the Court under article 5(1)(a) of the Court Protocol.2 The correct and, at this
stage, the only available avenue is therefore an article 55 communication to the Commission.
1.2 Locus Standi and Representation by PAHRO
Article 55 of the Charter, read with rule 115 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure (2020),
permits any natural or legal person to submit a communication, and expressly does not re-
quire the complainant to be a national or resident of the respondent state, nor to be the victim
personally.3 PAHRO may accordingly submit the communication on behalf of the Nhamo fam-
ily, provided the family’s consent and identity are placed on record, since the Commission
historically permits organisations acting in the public interest or on behalf of named victims to
be seized of a matter without the personal appearance of the victims themselves.
Because the deprivation described extends beyond the Nhamo household to the wider Esh-
lahleni community, PAHRO is not confined to framing the communication narrowly around
one family. The Commission has recognised a form of actio popularis under the Charter, per-
mitting a complainant to bring a communication in the public interest on behalf of a broader
group of victims without needing to identify each affected individual by name.4 PAHRO should
accordingly draft the communication to reflect both the Nhamo family’s individual circum-
stances and the pattern of deprivation affecting Eshlahleni as a community, since the cu-
mulative and community-wide character of the failure is itself part of the evidence that the
deprivation is systemic rather than incidental.
1
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998) art 34(6), read with art 5(3).
2
African Court Coalition, Ratification and Declaration ⟨https://africancourtcoalition.org/ratification-declaration/⟩
accessed 10 August 2026.
3
Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2020) r 115; Purohit and
Moore v The Gambia Communication 241/2001 (2003) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2003) para 1–12.
4
SERAC v Nigeria (n 5) para 49, recognising actio popularis standing under the African Charter.
Page 3 of 19
