The Right Against Double Jeopardy (Non Bis In Idem) in the Constitutions of African Countries

• Citation: (2023) 10(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 77
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i2a3
• Published date: 13 February 2024
• Pages: 77-106
• Author: Mujuzi, J.D.
• Date: 13 February 2024

77 https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i2a3

THE RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

(NON BIS IN IDEM) IN THE CONSTITUTIONS

OF AFRICAN COUNTRIES

Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi*

Abstract

Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

provides that “[n]o one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence

for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the

law and penal procedure of each country”. In human rights law, this is referred to

as the right against double jeopardy (non bis in idem). The ICCPR has been

ratified or acceded to by all African countries with the exception of Comoros and

South Sudan. This implies, inter alia, that African countries must ensure that the

right against double jeopardy is protected in their legislation. In this article, the

author examines the constitutional provisions of all the African countries to analyse

the extent to which they deal with the right against double jeopardy. The author

also refers to legislation and case law from different African countries to demonstrate

the circumstances in which a person who has been convicted or acquitted may be

prose cuted again for the same offence (retrial) without violating their right against

double jeopardy. The discussion shows, inter alia, that some of the constitutional

provisions on the right against double jeopardy are contrary to art 14(7) of the

ICCPR and some constitutions are silent on the right against double jeopardy.

However, this loophole is rectified through subsidiary legislation or direct or indirect

incorporation of art 14(7) in domestic legislation.

Keywords: double jeopardy; International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights; art 14(7); non bis in idem; retrial; African states; monist; dualist

Résumé

L’article 14(7) du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (1966)

prévoit que «[n]ul ne peut être poursuivi ou puni en raison d’une infraction pour

laquelle il a déjà été acquitté ou condamné par un jugement définitif conformément

à la loi et à la procédure pénale de chaque pays.» Dans la législation sur les

droits de l’homme, ce principe est appelé le droit contre la double incrimination

(non bis in idem). Tous les pays africains, à l’exception des Comores et du Sud-

Soudan, ont ratifié le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ou

y ont adhéré. Cela implique, entre autres, que les pays africains doivent s’assurer

que le droit contre la double incrimination est protégé dans leur législation. Dans

cet article, l’auteur examine les dispositions constitutionnelles de tous les pays

africains afin d’analyser dans quelle mesure elles traitent du droit contre la double

incrimination. L’auteur se réfère également à la législation et à la jurisprudence

de différents pays africains pour démontrer les circonstances dans lesquelles une

* Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape. Email: djmujuzi@gmail.

com

(2023) 10(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 77

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

78 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 10, NO 2, 2023

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i2a3

personne qui a été condamnée ou acquittée peut être poursuivie à nouveau pour le

même délit (nouveau procès) sans violer son droit contre la double incrimination.

La discussion montre, entre autres, que certaines des dispositions constitutionnelles

sur le droit contre la double incrimination sont contraires à l’article 14(7) du Pacte

international relatif aux droits civils et politiques et que certaines constitutions

sont muettes sur le droit contre la double incrimination. La discussion montre,

entre autres, que certaines des dispositions constitutionnelles sur le droit contre la

double incrimination sont contraires à l’article 14(7) du PIDCP et que certaines

constitutions sont silencieuses sur le droit contre la double incrimination. Toutefois,

cette lacune est rectifiée par une législation subsidiaire ou par l’incorporation directe

ou indirecte de l’article 14(7) dans la législation nationale.

Mots clés : double incrimination; Pacte international relatif aux droits

civils et politiques; art 14(7); non bis in idem; nouveau procès; états africains;

moniste; dualiste

Introduction

Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(1966) provides that “[n]o one shall be liable to be tried or punished again

for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted

in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”.

In human rights law, this is referred to as the right against double jeopardy

(non bis in idem) and it has a very long history.1 The ICCPR has been ratified

or acceded to by all African countries with the exception of Comoros

and South Sudan.2 This means that at a minimum, all these countries

have an international obligation to give effect to art 14(7). None of the

African countries have made a reservation or interpretative declaration on

art 14(7).3 The right against double jeopardy is also provided for under

art 19(1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (1994) which has been

ratified by some African countries, in the Protocol on Amendments to

the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human

Rights (2014)4 and in other instruments such as the Rome Statute of

1 See generally, Sigler, J.A. ‘A history of double jeopardy’ (1963) 7(4) The American Journal of

Legal History 28 –309.

2 Comoros signed the Covenant on 28 September 2008. South Sudan had not signed or

acceded to the ICCPR as at the time of writing. See https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/

TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CCPR&Lang=en, accessed 12 January 2023).

3 As will be discussed below, some countries have made reservations on art 14(7).

4 Article 46I of the Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court

of Justice and Human Rights (2014) provides that “[1]. Except as provided in this Statute, no person

shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which

the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court. [2]. Except in exceptional circumstances,

no person who has been tried by another court for conduct proscribed under art 28A of this Statute

shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other

Court: (a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for

crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd