Skip to content
logo

International Justice Resource Center

International Justice Resource Center

  • View ijrcenter’s profile on Facebook
  • View ijrcenter’s profile on Twitter
  • View ijrcenter’s profile on Instagram
  • View ijrcenter’s profile on LinkedIn
  • View ijrcenter’s profile on YouTube
  • View ijrcenter’s profile on Vimeo
  • About IJRC
    • Who We Are
      • Board of Directors
      • Advisory Board
    • What We Do
      • Online Resource Hub
      • Litigation & Advocacy Support
      • Trainings
    • IJRC in the News
    • Work with IJRC
    • Contact Us
  • Human Rights Law
    • Human Rights Overview
    • Civil & Political Rights
    • Vulnerable Groups
    • Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
    • Country Factsheets
    • Research Aids
      • Books & Articles
      • Civil Society Actors
      • Human Rights Conditions
      • International Human Rights Instruments
      • Jurisprudence & Document Databases
    • Related Areas of Law
      • Asylum & the Rights of Refugees
      • International Criminal Law
      • International Humanitarian Law
      • Regional Integration Agreements
  • Courts & Monitoring Bodies
    • United Nations
      • Human Rights Council
      • Universal Periodic Review
      • Independent Experts
      • Human Rights Treaty Bodies
        • Human Rights Committee
        • Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
        • Committee Against Torture
        • Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
        • Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
        • Committee on Enforced Disappearances
        • Committee on Migrant Workers
        • Committee on the Rights of the Child
        • Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
        • Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
    • Africa
      • African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
      • African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
      • COMESA Court of Justice
      • East African Court of Justice
      • ECOWAS Court of Justice
      • Southern African Development Community Tribunal
    • Americas
      • Inter-American Court of Human Rights
      • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
      • Caribbean Court of Justice
      • Central American Court of Justice
      • Court of Justice of the Andean Community
    • Asia
    • Europe
      • European Court of Human Rights
      • European Committee of Social Rights
      • Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
    • Middle East and North Africa
    • National Bodies
      • National Courts
      • National Human Rights Institutions
      • Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
      • Universal Jurisdiction
    • Hearings & Sessions
    • Other International Bodies
      • International Court of Justice
      • International Criminal Court
      • ICTR
      • ICTY
      • Internationalized Criminal Tribunals
      • International Labour Organization
      • Courts and Tribunals of Regional Economic Communities
  • News & Events
    • News Room
    • IJRC Daily
    • Hearings & Sessions
    • IJRC Events
  • Media & Publications
    • IJRC Publications
    • IJRC Interview Series
    • Educational Videos
      • Advocacy before the Inter-American Human Rights System
      • El Litigio e Incidencia ante el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos
      • Atuação perante o Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos
      • Pledwaye Devan Sistèm Entè-Ameriken pou Pwoteksyon Dwa Moun
    • Training Sessions
  • Donate

African Rights Court Issues Landmark Advisory Opinion Rejecting Vagrancy Laws

December 9, 2020 IJRC African System, children, discrimination, due process & judicial protection, economic, social & cultural rights, equal protection, family, international human rights, liberty & security of person, women's rights

On December 4, 2020, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) published and delivered an advisory opinion declaring national laws that criminalize vagrancy to be incompatible with human rights standards. [AfCHPR Press Release] The opinion concludes that laws that essentially criminalize homelessness, poverty, or unemployment are overly broad and allow for abuse. The Court held that such laws punish individuals for their status rather than their actions, are a discriminatory and disproportionate State response, and violate numerous human rights – including specific rights of children and women. See AfCHPR, Request for Advisory Opinion by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) on the Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Other Human Rights Instruments Applicable in Africa, No. 001/2018, Advisory Opinion of 4 Dec. 2020.

At least 18 African States criminalize “vagrancy,” while another eight or more penalize the state of being a “rogue” or “vagabond,” and it is a criminal offense in three States to be idle and disorderly. See id. at para. 60. The Court declared that these States have an obligation to repeal or modify their laws in line with its opinion. The Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), which submitted its request for the advisory opinion in 2018, welcomed the Court’s ruling. 

Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with African Human Rights Standards

The Court began its analysis by noting that “vagrancy” is a generic term referring to “the state or condition of wandering from place to place without a home, job or means of support.” See AfCHPR, Advisory Opinion of 4 Dec. 2020, para. 57. The Court observed that at least eight African countries have repealed or nullified their vagrancy laws, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice held that the arrest of several women for being on the street at night was a violation of their human rights. See id. at paras. 61, 62.

The Court clearly and directly criticized vagrancy laws, describing them as “punish[ing] the poor and underprivileged, including but not limited to the homeless, the disabled, the gender-nonconforming, sex workers, hawkers, street vendors, and individuals who otherwise use public spaces to earn a living” despite the fact that such individuals “are already challenged in enjoying their other rights including…their socio-economic rights.” See id. at para. 70. The Court further criticized these laws as using “vague, unclear and imprecise language” that does not allow individuals to understand what activity is prohibited and gives wide discretion to law enforcement, creating a situation ripe for abuse. See id. at para. 71. Moreover, because vagrancy does not, necessarily, involve any other criminal offense, arrests under vagrancy laws are “largely unnecessary” to prevent crime. See id. at para. 72.

The Court went on to conclude that vagrancy laws violate multiple provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. First, with regard to discrimination and equal protection, the Court held that vagrancy laws allow different treatment of individuals based on their status, in violation of articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. See id. at paras. 64-75.

Noting that terms like “rogue” or “idle” are outdated, colonial, and dehumanizing, the Court concluded that “the application of vagrancy laws often deprives the underprivileged and marginalized of their dignity by unlawfully interfering with their efforts to maintain or build a decent life or to enjoy the lifestyle they pursue,” which is incompatible with Article 5 (dignity) of the Charter. Further, it held that forcibly relocating individuals to other areas on the basis of vagrancy also violates their right to dignity, as do arrests without a warrant for vagrancy. See id. at paras. 76-82.

With regard to Article 6 (liberty and security) of the Charter, the Court held that the vagueness of vagrancy laws results in arbitrary arrests and detentions, in violation of the rights to liberty and security. See id. at paras. 83-87.

When authorities arrest individuals for vagrancy and require them to explain their situation and possible criminal activity, this violates the presumption of innocence and is incompatible with Article 7 (fair trial) of the Charter. See id. at paras. 88-94.

Drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Court affirmed that restrictions on freedom of movement must be provided by law and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health, or the rights of others. Because the Court found vagrancy laws not to be necessary for any of their purported purposes, particularly where other policy alternatives exist, it held that they violate Article 12 (freedom of movement) of the Charter, including when applied to force individuals to relocate. See id. at paras. 95-102

The Court held that Article 18 (protection of the family) is violated when authorities arrest, detain, or forcibly relocate individuals pursuant to vagrancy laws. This is because such laws violate the Charter (and, therefore, cannot be the basis of a legitimate law enforcement action) and may separate families or deprive family members of financial or emotional support. See id. at paras. 103-07.

Turning to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the Court held that enforcement of vagrancy laws violates children’s rights to non-discrimination and a fair trial, and is incompatible with the best interests of the child. See id. at paras. 112-28.

With regard to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Maputo Protocol), the Court held that vagrancy laws violate Article 24, to the extent that they allow the arrest without a warrant of women considered to have “‘no means of subsistence’” or who “‘cannot give a satisfactory account’” of themselves. Article 24 requires States parties to “to ensure the protection of poor women and women heads of families, including women from marginalised groups, and provide an environment suitable to their condition and their special physical, economic and social needs.” See id. at paras. 135-40.

State Obligations to Repeal or Amend Vagrancy Laws

The Court noted that States have obligations to to take measures to give full effect to the rights protected by African human rights instruments. See id. At paras. 149-51. Given its above conclusions, the AfCHPR held that States parties must “either amend or repeal their vagrancy-laws and by-laws to bring them into conformity with these instruments.” See id. at paras 153-54.

AfCHPR’s Advisory Jurisdiction

The Court has issued few advisory opinions. In many instances, it has rejected requests for advisory opinions because the requesting entity lacked the necessary status or because the request related to a matter pending before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See, e.g., AfCHPR, Request for Advisory Opinion by the Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria and the Coalition of African Lesbians, No. 002/2015, Advisory Opinion of 28 Sept. 2017; Request for Advisory Opinion by Pan African Lawyers’ Union and Southern African Litigation Center, No. 002/2012, Order of 15 Mar. 2013. The AfCHPR has jurisdiction to deliver advisory opinions at the request of African Union (AU) Member States, the AU itself or any of its organs, or “any African organisation recognised by the AU.” See AfCHPR Rules of Court (2020), art. 82(1).

In this instance, the Court held it could deliver the opinion requested by PALU because PALU is registered in Tanzania, carries out activities at the regional level, and has a memorandum of understanding with the AU – which “is an accepted way by which the AU recognises non-governmental organisations.” See AfCHPR, Advisory Opinion of 4 Dec. 2020, paras. 23-25.

Additional Information

For more information on the African human rights system, visit IJRC’s Online Resource Hub. See our thematic research guides for explanations of economic, social, and cultural rights; women’s rights; and, children’s rights under international human rights law. For an overview of African countries’ human rights obligations, use IJRC’s country factsheets. To stay up-to-date on international human rights news, visit IJRC’s News Room or subscribe to the IJRC Daily.

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Post navigation

Previous Post:Human Rights Bodies’ Sessions & Hearings: December 2020
Next Post:Human Rights Day 2020

COVID-19 & Human Rights Oversight

See human rights bodies' COVID-19 guidance on our dedicated webpage, organized by mechanism and theme, and updated regularly.

For human rights bodies' schedule and activity changes due to the pandemic, see our Monthly Overview posts or the IJRC Hearings & Sessions Calendar.

Human Rights Document Search

Upcoming Hearings & Sessions

  • March 30, 2023
    • Human Rights Council 52ndHuman Rights Council 52nd

      The UN Human Rights Council is holding its 52nd regular session from February 27 to April 4, in person in Geneva, Switzerland.
      all day
    • CED 24th SessionCED 24th Session

      The Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) will hold its 24th Session from March 20 to 31, in person, in Geneva. The CED will review Costa Rica and Zambia, and adopt lists of issues for its review of Benin, Malta, and Norway. Its programme of work also includes dialogues with Germany and Argentina concerning their reports on additional information.
      all day
    • CMW 36th SessionCMW 36th Session

      The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW) will hold its 36th Session from March 27 to April 6. During the session, it will hold constructive dialogues with El Salvador, Morocco, Nigeria, and the Philippines concerning their implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. The CMW will adopt lists of issues prior to reporting for Niger and Seychelles. Its agenda also includes discussion of efforts to promote the Convention.
      all day
  • March 31, 2023
    • Human Rights Council 52ndHuman Rights Council 52nd

      The UN Human Rights Council is holding its 52nd regular session from February 27 to April 4, in person in Geneva, Switzerland.
      all day
    • CMW 36th SessionCMW 36th Session

      The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW) will hold its 36th Session from March 27 to April 6. During the session, it will hold constructive dialogues with El Salvador, Morocco, Nigeria, and the Philippines concerning their implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. The CMW will adopt lists of issues prior to reporting for Niger and Seychelles. Its agenda also includes discussion of efforts to promote the Convention.
      all day

Subscribe to the News Room


Search this Site

About IJRC

The International Justice Resource Center (IJRC) informs, trains, and advises advocates and individual victims on using international and regional human rights protections to advance justice and accountability in their communities.

Donate Today!

PayPal Giving Fund

Join Our Mailing List

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Save & Accept