In early March, Tunisia officially revoked its citizens’ abilities to file cases against the government in Africa’s human rights court. On March 7, 2025, Tunisia notified the African Union (AU) of its decision to withdraw the Article 34(6) declaration that allows individuals and non-governmental organizations to file cases against it before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. A blatant assault on access to justice, Tunisia’s withdrawal is the latest move in president Kais Saied’s broader campaign to dismantle accountability for his authoritarian rule and grave human rights violations.

President Saied’s Latest Attack on Judicial Accountability

The 2011 revolution that ended President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s 23-year rule brought significant changes to the Tunisian government’s approach to transitional justice, accountability, and human rights. Human rights defenders and NGOs gained greater freedom, many political prisoners were released, and in 2013, Tunisia established the Truth and Dignity Commission to address historical human rights abuses. In 2017, Tunisia further reinforced its commitment to human rights by making an Article 34(6) declaration, allowing individuals to file human rights complaints directly before the African Court.

However, since President Saied’s July 2021 “self-coup,” in which he suspended parliament and began ruling by decree, Tunisia has experienced severe setbacks in democracy and human rights. Ahead of the 2024 elections, his government cracked down on civic space, accused NGOs of illegal funding, and targeted the press. Virtually every major opposition leader faced prosecution or imprisonment. Sihem Ben Sedrine, the former head of the Truth and Dignity Commission, was dismissed and later jailed over charges related to the publication of the Commission’s final report. Saied also dismantled the judiciary, dismissing judges en masse and undermining the Administrative Court when it ruled against him in the 2024 elections.

With shrinking domestic avenues for justice, Tunisian human rights defenders and victims have turned to the African Court. Fourteen cases have been filed against Tunisia since the July 2021 coup, many yielding favorable rulings. Tunisian lawyer Ibrahim Belguith successfully argued before the Court that Saied’s self-coup violated Tunisians’ fundamental rights. Additionally, judicial officers dismissed by presidential decree sued to contest their dismissal as violating their rights and the independence of the judiciary. In 2023, the families of prominent political prisoners accused the government of human rights violations against their loved ones; the Court’s provisional measures required Tunisia to provide detainees with legal counsel and medical attention while the Court examines the full application.

Saied’s decision to withdraw from the Court’s jurisdiction is a direct response to these cases, signaling a clear intent to evade accountability.

The Impact of Tunisia’s Withdrawal

The most immediate consequence is the loss of individual access to the Court. Tunisia’s notification triggers a one-year intervening period before the withdrawal takes effect, meaning that cases can still be filed until March 6, 2026. However, all cases currently before the Court and filed by March 6, 2026 will continue to be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction until completion.Despite the withdrawal, Tunisia remains a party to the protocol establishing the African Court, meaning that the Court can still exercise jurisdiction over cases filed against it by other states that are parties to the protocol (this group includes 34 of the 55 AU member states). Tunisia also remains subject to the Court’s advisory jurisdiction and cases brought by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The Need for a Strong Response to #TunisiaExit

While Tunisia’s withdrawal is a setback for human rights in Africa, it presents a crucial window for action. Tunisian activists and human rights defenders should use the one-year period to escalate litigation before the Court, drawing lessons from Tanzania, where withdrawal in 2019 led to a surge in cases before the deadline. Many of these cases have since been finalized.

The human rights community—including the African Commission—must call on Tunisia to reverse its Article 34(6) withdrawal and comply with the decisions that the Court has already issued. Although none of the five countries that have withdrawn their declaration have reversed their decision as of yet, there are signs that Tanzania is seriously considering reversing its withdrawal. 

On their part, the African Union must do more to discourage withdrawals from the Court. The recently elected African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson, Mahmoud Youssouf, should prioritize Tunisia’s withdrawal and strongly urge the 22 AU member states that have ratified the Court’s protocol but have yet to make an Article 34(6) declaration—including influential states such as Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, South Africa, and Zambia—to do so. Additionally, the AUC should push for more ratifications of the African Court’s protocol, addressing the troubling fact that 31 states have yet to ratify it, including Mr. Youssouf’s home state, Djibouti, and Africa’s leading human rights instruments ratifier, Angola, Botswana, Sierra Leone, and Namibia, among others. 

African states must take steps to reinforce and strengthen the Court and other human rights mechanisms by ensuring that they remain a viable mechanism for justice. The Tunisian government’s actions must not be treated lightly. Even as an exercise of sovereignty, the withdrawal is not in the interest of the Tunisian people. 

Ikechukwu Uzoma is the Senior Staff Attorney at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. Bassel Jamili is a Legal Fellow at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.