Arusha, Tanzania – June 6, 2025
Yesterday, the Pan African Lawyers Union (‘PALU’), alongside fellow human rights defenders and legal representatives of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, appeared before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘the Court’) in a landmark public hearing. The case, Application No. 006/2012 – African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. The Republic of Kenya marks a historic effort to secure long-overdue justice for the Ogiek people of Kenya.
This hearing, held more than a decade after the Court’s initial 2017 judgment on merits, is focused on examining the Respondent’s (The Kenyan government) compliance with that ruling. In its 2017 decision, the Court found that the Respondent had violated the rights of the Ogiek people, an indigenous community residing in the Mau Forest, through forced evictions and denial of their cultural, religious and land rights. The court, in its 2022 judgment on reparations, then precisely specified the actions that the Respondent had to undertake as reparation for the violations it had committed against the Ogiek community.
Scrutinising Implementation: Progress and Shortfalls
The Respondent claimed that it had taken steps toward complying with the Court’s judgments. These steps included legislative developments such as the enactment of the Forest Conservation and Management Act and the Community Land Act. The Respondent also reported the formation of a task force through the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change to advise on implementation. According to the Respondent, public hearings and consultations were conducted with the Ogiek community as part of this process.
However, this position was strongly opposed and the evidence on record poked holes in the legitimacy, effectiveness and transparency of these efforts. According to the Applicant’s legal team, led by Advocate Bahame Tom Nyanduga and supported by PALU’s CEO, Advocate Don Deya, the implementation appears to be at a standstill since the 2017 judgment. In the Respondent’s 8 May 2025 report to the Court on implementation, it alleged several challenges. These included the size and internal diversity of the Ogiek community within the expansive Mau Forest; the existence of ongoing domestic proceedings initiated by the community’s chairman in 2024; the ecological sensitivity of the Mau Forest and Kenya’s related obligations under national and international conservation frameworks; limited financial resources; and administrative transitions affecting continuity. Despite these references, the overall picture presented by the evidence suggests minimal tangible progress in fulfilling the judgment’s requirements.
The Respondent requested for a considerable amount of time to implement the decision, stating that the process of compliance and consultations with the Ogiek are ongoing as instructed by the Court. The Respondent insisted that engagements will continue and updates on implementation will be provided, assuring the Court that it recognises the Ogiek culture and language.
The Applicants’ call for accountability and Action
Commissioner Solomon Dersso of the African Commission emphasised that all the orders of the Court’s 2017 and 2022 judgments remain unfulfilled and the Respondent has not met any established timelines for implementation. He further criticised the lack of specificity and actionable detail in the Respondent’s reports to the Court.
Applicants’ counsel emphasised that the Respondent’s allegations of challenges in implementing the decision of the court on reparations, which was delivered 3 years, 1 month and 14 days ago were not grounded on legal principles nor were they justifiable. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the evidence of ‘extensive’ consultation of the Ogiek amount to a series of attendance rosters, which are unverified and unverifiable. Likewise, it was argued that the measures of implementation claimed by the Respondent such as composing an Inter-Ministerial Committee to devise an implementation roadmap were not proven through any documents tendered to the Court. The Respondent’s arguments that the Ogiek had brought cases before the Kenyan domestic courts were similarly challenged as they lacked a legal basis to prevent proceedings before the Court, which had delivered two judgments on the matter prior to the domestic court cases being brought.
Applicant’s counsel further stressed that the Mau Forest was the ancestral home of the Ogiek, who were responsible for preserving it across generations and that it is their eviction, not their presence, that has triggered the current conservation challenges.
The Way Forward: Clear Roadmap and Court Oversight
In response to the gaps in implementation, the Applicant has proposed the establishment of an independent mechanism to support the Respondent in developing a realistic and inclusive roadmap for fulfilling the Court’s orders.
The legal team urged the Court to:
- Direct the Respondent to produce a detailed implementation roadmap with clear timelines and milestones;
- Issue provisional orders to freeze any further land or conservation decisions affecting the Ogiek until the next court session, scheduled for three months from now; and
- Mandate the government to provide concrete evidence of consultations with the Ogiek and demonstrate implementation of all taskforce recommendations.
Why This Matters
The outcome of this hearing extends beyond the Ogiek. It is a critical test of how African States implement decisions from African Human Rights Mechanisms, especially on indigenous peoples’ rights, land justice, and environmental governance. It also sets a precedent for State accountability and the enforcement of human rights on the continent.
As PALU and other defenders continue to press for justice, all eyes now turn to the Court’s next session, where the effectiveness of Kenya’s renewed commitments and the Court’s resolve to ensure implementation of its own decisions will be put to the test.