Corporate accountability under the African human rights system before LIDHO
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:15 am
The ACHPR has been at the forefront of elaborating jurisprudence and soft law standards to establish the contours of corporate accountability for human rights infringements. In the SERAC v Nigeria and IHRDA v. DRC (Kilwa) cases, while primary responsibility is placed on the State, both cases also illustrated the responsibility of corporations in the human rights violations. In the SERAC case, the state had “condoned and facilitated these violations by placing the legal and military powers of the state at the disposal of the oil companies”, and in the Kilwa case “failed not only to investigate and punish the involvement of the Anvil Mining Company but also to provide redress for the victims against the Company for the role it played in the perpetration of the violations”. Both are clear in specifying that the actions that resulted in the human and peoples’ rights violations were that of corporations. After the Kilwa case the ACHPR also sent a letter to the corporation, requiring it to take responsibility for its role in the human rights violations.
The ACHPR also through soft law elaborated the obligations of corporations under the African Charter, including in its State Reporting Guidelines on Articles 21 and 24 of the African Charter which confirm that the individual duties in the Charter also form a legal basis for corporate human rights obligations. The Commission elaborated the duty of care, in terms of which skype database corporate actors should “ensure that their actions or operations do not result in or trigger the occurrence of harm or the curtailment or deprivation of the rights guaranteed under the African Charter” and also “ensure continuously that their acts or operations are in full compliance with internationally accepted human and peoples’ rights, labour and environmental standards to avoid any incident producing harm or curtailment of rights of people”.
Development of the law on corporate accountability in LIDHO
The Court in the LIDHO case for the first-time comments on the accountability of non-state actors, in particular corporations, for the violation of human rights. It held that “even though the responsibility […] to respect the obligations of international law is incumbent primarily on States, it is also true that this responsibility is incumbent on companies, notably, multinational companies” (emphasis added). This echoes the African Commission’s State Reporting Guidelines on Articles 21 and 24 explanatory note stating that “While States are the primary obligation bearers under the African Charter, it is also legally recognized that corporations, particularly multinational ones, have obligations towards right holders”. The African Commission traces this obligation or responsibility to “the recognition that lack of such obligations may result in the creation of a human rights vacuum in which such entities operate without observing human rights”.
The ACHPR also through soft law elaborated the obligations of corporations under the African Charter, including in its State Reporting Guidelines on Articles 21 and 24 of the African Charter which confirm that the individual duties in the Charter also form a legal basis for corporate human rights obligations. The Commission elaborated the duty of care, in terms of which skype database corporate actors should “ensure that their actions or operations do not result in or trigger the occurrence of harm or the curtailment or deprivation of the rights guaranteed under the African Charter” and also “ensure continuously that their acts or operations are in full compliance with internationally accepted human and peoples’ rights, labour and environmental standards to avoid any incident producing harm or curtailment of rights of people”.
Development of the law on corporate accountability in LIDHO
The Court in the LIDHO case for the first-time comments on the accountability of non-state actors, in particular corporations, for the violation of human rights. It held that “even though the responsibility […] to respect the obligations of international law is incumbent primarily on States, it is also true that this responsibility is incumbent on companies, notably, multinational companies” (emphasis added). This echoes the African Commission’s State Reporting Guidelines on Articles 21 and 24 explanatory note stating that “While States are the primary obligation bearers under the African Charter, it is also legally recognized that corporations, particularly multinational ones, have obligations towards right holders”. The African Commission traces this obligation or responsibility to “the recognition that lack of such obligations may result in the creation of a human rights vacuum in which such entities operate without observing human rights”.