## Facts

- A political organization claiming to represent the people of Katanga filed a communication in 1992 against Zaire under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
- The complainant asked the African Commission to recognize it as a liberation movement, recognize Katanga’s independence, and assist in the evacuation of Zairean forces from Katanga.
- The claim was presented as a demand for external self-determination (secession), relying primarily on Article 20(1) (right of peoples to self-determination).
- The complainant did not allege specific violations of other Charter rights beyond the asserted denial of self-determination.
- The Commission considered whether there was evidence of serious human rights violations or denial of participation in government that could justify calling Zaire’s territorial integrity into question.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 20(1) entitles the people of Katanga to external self-determination in the form of secession/independence.
2. Whether there was concrete evidence of serious human rights violations and/or denial of political participation sufficient to justify a remedy inconsistent with Zaire’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

## Decision

- The Commission rejected the requests to recognize Katanga’s independence and to treat the complainant as a liberation movement for purposes of achieving secession.
- The Commission found no evidence of violations of rights under the African Charter.
- The Commission concluded that, on the record presented, Katanga was required to pursue a form of self-determination compatible with Zaire’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

## Legal Principles

- Peoples have a right to self-determination, but its content may be realized through multiple political-constitutional arrangements, including independence, self-government, local government, federalism, confederalism, or other arrangements reflecting the people’s wishes while respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Territorial integrity of a member state is a governing constraint when assessing self-determination claims under the Charter.
- External self-determination (secession) is not supported absent concrete evidence of severe human rights violations that could justify questioning territorial integrity and/or evidence that the relevant population is denied participation in government (including rights protected by Article 13(1)).

## Conclusion

The African Commission held that the secession claim failed because the complainant provided no concrete evidence of serious human rights violations or exclusion from political participation that could warrant an outcome inconsistent with Zaire’s territorial integrity, and therefore found no Charter violation and no merit to the request for Katanga’s independence.


Katangese Peoples’ Cong. v. Zaire, Comm. No. 75/92, 8th Ann. Activity Rep. Afr. Comm’n H.P.R. 1994–1995 (1995)