This website is auto-translated, please bear with us if the translation is not 100%.
This website is auto-translated, please bear with us if the translation is not 100%.
Despite contributing less than 4% to global greenhouse gas emissions, Africa faces severe climate change impacts, including droughts, floods, food insecurity, and displacement. Vulnerable populations, such as Indigenous communities, women, and children, are disproportionately affected due to limited adaptation resources and historical inequities.
ON 2 May 2025, the African Climate Platform (ACP), a broad coalition of African civil society organisations, lawyers, indigenous communities, women’s groups, and youth movements, filed the historic climate change petition to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for legal accountability on climate action.
This petition seeks an Advisory Opinion from the African Court to establish a clear legal framework for African states’ human rights obligations in responding to the climate crisis. It aims to advance climate jurisprudence, promote accountability, and protect the rights of present and future generations.
The petition is grounded in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly Articles 4 (right to life), 16 (right to health), 22 (right to development), and 24 (right to a satisfactory environment). It also draws on international agreements like the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.
The campaign is led by the African Climate Platform (ACP), a coalition of civil society organizations, Indigenous groups, and climate activists, in partnership with the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU). Over 50 organizations from West, East, Central, Southern, and North Africa are involved.
The African Climate Platform (ACP) & Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) filed the historic climate change petition before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR).
The Court invited all African Union member States, AU Organs and other interested entities to file observations on the petition within 90 days (by 4 December 2025).
The Court further extended the filing time of amicus briefs to 30 March 2026.
The Court extended the deadline for filing of amicus briefs by a further 45 days to 10 July 2026.
Guidance from the court pertaining to the status of the petition and the number of submissions received.
Download documentThe petition requests an Advisory Opinion from the African Court to clarify the human rights obligations of African states in addressing the climate crisis. It focuses on protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring equitable climate action.
Filed under Article 4 of the Protocol to the African Charter, the petition is supported by the African Charter, the Kampala Convention, the Maputo Protocol, and international climate treaties. It seeks to establish legal standards for mitigation, adaptation, and reparations.
The petition was finalized during a lawyers’ meeting in Arusha, Tanzania, from April 27 to May 2, 2025. It has been filed in person at the African Court on May 2, 2025, followed by a press conference to amplify our message.
3rd party petition to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for legal accountability on climate action.
The African Climate Platform (ACP) is a broad coalition of African civil society organizations, lawyers, indigenous communities, women’s groups, and youth movements working together to petition the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for legal accountability on climate action.
The Pan African Lawyers Union is Africa’s most powerful legal organization, representing over 1,000 lawyers, 54 national bar associations, and 5 regional legal organizations across the continent. Founded in 2002, PALU has official partnership status with the African Union through a 2006 agreement, giving it direct access to continental decision-makers and the authority to speak for the entire African legal profession. They do not just practice law – they write the laws that govern an entire continent, having designed legal frameworks for major African institutions and created policies that protect human rights across Africa.
ACP and PALU have filed the most important climate case in African history with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, requesting the Court to clarify rights of citizens and obligations of States in the context of the climate crisis. This petition seeks to transform climate protection from a political choice into a binding legal obligation, requiring mandatory disaster preparedness, early warning systems, legal protection for vulnerable groups, strict environmental regulations for corporations, and enforceable rights to climate finance and compensation. If ACP and PALU win, African citizens could take their governments to court for failing to protect them from climate change.
The climate devastation that ACP and PALU seek to address through legal action is already destroying lives and livelihoods across every region of Africa. From deadly heat waves in West Africa to catastrophic droughts in East Africa, climate change is creating humanitarian crises that current voluntary government responses cannot handle. There is a recognition that without binding legal obligations, African governments will continue to respond inadequately to climate emergencies that are intensifying every year and threatening the survival of entire communities, hence the filing of this case.
The African Union has adopted climate strategies, created policy frameworks, and participated in international negotiations, but ACP and PALU argue these efforts lack binding legal force. While the AU has voluntary climate policies and some monitoring systems, there are no enforceable obligations requiring governments to protect their people, vulnerable communities lack legal rights to climate protection, and corporate accountability remains weak. ACP and PALU want to transform these voluntary commitments into binding legal obligations through continental human rights law, creating enforceable rights for every African to protection from climate disasters and binding duties for every government to provide that protection.
If the ACP and PALU succeed, they will have created a powerful legal tool for climate action in the developing world, making every African government legally accountable for protecting their people from climate change. This represents a shift from hoping governments will act on climate change to legally forcing them to act, potentially transforming how an entire continent responds to its greatest existential threat.
ACP and PALU are filing what is known as an advisory opinion request- think of it like asking a judge to clarify the rules before a game starts. Instead of suing a specific government for specific damages, they’re asking the African Court to explain what legal duties all African governments have regarding climate change. It’s like getting an official referee ruling on what counts as a foul, so everyone knows the rules going forward. This type of case creates legal precedents that all African countries should follow.
The African Court on Human and People’s Rights is the pre-eminent human rights court in Africa, and when it makes decisions, all 54 African countries are supposed to follow them. It’s like having a continental Supreme Court for human rights issues. PALU has special legal standing to bring cases here because they represent the entire African legal profession – they’re not just one organization complaining, they’re the official voice of thousands of lawyers across the continent, which gives their arguments much more legal weight.
ACP and PALU argue that climate change violates multiple rights guaranteed in the African Charter, including the right to life (people dying from heat waves and droughts), right to health (increased diseases and malnutrition), right to food and water (crop failures and water shortages), and crucially, the right to a satisfactory environment. They’re making the legal argument that when governments fail to protect people from predictable climate disasters, they’re breaking the law by violating these fundamental rights that they’ve already promised to protect.
ACP and PALU aren’t saying African governments caused climate change – they’re arguing governments have legal duties to protect their people from foreseeable harm, regardless of who caused it. It’s like how your local government must prepare for earthquakes, even though they didn’t cause geological activity. Under human rights law, governments have three types of obligations: respect rights (don’t violate them directly), protect rights (stop others from violating them), and fulfill rights (take positive action to ensure people can enjoy them). ACP and PALU say climate protection falls under all three categories.
Positive obligations mean governments must actively do things to protect rights, not just avoid harming people themselves. For example, the right to health doesn’t just mean the government can’t poison you – it means they must build hospitals, train doctors, and have public health systems. In climate terms, positive obligations would require governments to create early warning systems, build flood defenses, prepare disaster response plans, and regulate companies that contribute to climate problems. It’s the difference between “don’t hurt people” and “actively protect people.”
When the African Court issues an advisory opinion, it becomes authoritative legal guidance that all African countries should follow in their laws and policies. It’s not just a suggestion – it becomes part of the legal framework that other courts will reference when deciding future cases. Think of it like a constitutional amendment that applies across an entire continent. If ACP and PALU wins, every African government would have clear legal duties regarding climate change, and citizens could use this ruling to challenge their governments in national courts.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction means a country’s legal responsibilities can extend beyond its borders. ACP and PALU argue that when multinational corporations headquartered in wealthy countries cause climate damage in Africa, both the company’s home country and the African host country have legal duties to prevent and remedy that harm. This could mean European countries could be held legally responsible for the climate impacts of their companies operating in Africa, creating much stronger legal tools for accountability.
ACP and PALU want the court to clarify that African governments have legal duties to regulate corporations operating in their territory, especially regarding environmental damage. This would mean governments couldn’t just let big companies pollute in exchange for investment – they would be legally required to enforce strict environmental standards. The case also explores whether governments must require Environmental Impact Assessments for major projects and whether they can be held responsible for failing to monitor corporate behavior that contributes to climate change.
Intergenerational rights mean current governments have legal obligations to protect not just people alive today, but future generations who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions. It’s the legal principle that you can’t sacrifice your children’s fundamental rights for short-term benefits today. In climate terms, this means governments can’t make decisions that will leave future generations unable to enjoy basic rights like life, health, and a livable environment. This concept could make it illegal for governments to approve projects that worsen long-term climate impacts.
If ACP and PALU win, Africa would have powerful legal arguments in international climate talks, backed by a continental court ruling. Instead of just asking for help, African countries could point to legally binding obligations that require wealthy nations to provide climate finance and reduce emissions. The ruling could also establish legal precedents that other regions might adopt, potentially reshaping international climate law. It would transform climate action from voluntary cooperation to legal obligation, giving developing countries much stronger negotiating positions.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, also known as the Banjul Charter, is Africa’s foundational human rights document adopted in 1981 in Banjul, Gambia. Unlike other regional human rights instruments, the Banjul Charter uniquely combines individual rights with collective “peoples’ rights” and emphasizes African values and traditions. 54 African Union member states have ratified this charter, making it the most widely accepted legal framework for human rights across the continent and the supreme law for protecting fundamental freedoms in Africa.
The Banjul Charter stands apart because it recognizes both individual and collective rights, reflecting African communitarian values where community welfare is as important as individual freedom. It explicitly includes economic, social, and cultural rights alongside civil and political rights, and uniquely guarantees environmental rights through Article 24. The charter also emphasizes duties and responsibilities, not just rights, and incorporates African traditions and values into international human rights law, making it more culturally relevant to African societies than Western-influenced documents.
When African countries ratify the Banjul Charter, they legally commit to respect, protect, and fulfill all the rights it contains, making charter violations subject to both domestic and international legal action. The charter established the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to monitor compliance and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to adjudicate violations. Decisions from these bodies create binding legal precedents that all African countries must follow, transforming the charter from aspirational goals into enforceable legal obligations.
ACP and PALU’s climate case could establish the first comprehensive continental legal framework requiring climate protection as a fundamental human right across an entire continent. By using the Banjul Charter’s unique environmental rights, collective peoples’ rights, and positive obligations, the case could create legal precedents that transform climate action from voluntary policy into binding legal duty for 54 countries and 1.3 billion people. Success would make the Banjul Charter the most powerful climate protection instrument in the developing world and potentially influence climate law globally.
ACP and PALU’s climate case could establish the first comprehensive continental legal framework requiring climate protection as a fundamental human right across an entire continent. By using the Banjul Charter’s unique environmental rights, collective peoples’ rights, and positive obligations, the case could create legal precedents that transform climate action from voluntary policy into binding legal duty for 54 countries and 1.3 billion people. Success would make the Banjul Charter the most powerful climate protection instrument in the developing world and potentially influence climate law globally.
Article 24 guarantees that “all peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development” makes the Banjul Charter one of the only human rights documents worldwide to explicitly recognize environmental rights. This groundbreaking provision means environmental degradation is automatically a human rights violation, and governments have binding duties to maintain environmental quality. For climate change, Article 24 transforms environmental protection from a policy preference into a fundamental human rights obligation, giving legal force to climate protection demands.
The ACP and PALU strategically used multiple articles of the African Charter to build a comprehensive climate case, with Article 24’s environmental rights serving as the foundation by treating climate stability as essential to a “satisfactory environment.” They transformed Article 4 (right to life) from protecting against direct government violence to requiring active climate protection, used Article 16 (health) to mandate prevention of climate-related diseases, and employed Articles 2 and 3 (equality) to ensure climate protection reaches all communities regardless of wealth. Additionally, they leveraged Article 21 to challenge foreign corporations that worsen climate impacts, Articles 9-11 to protect climate activists’ rights to information and assembly, Article 18 to demand gender-responsive climate policies addressing women’s and children’s disproportionate vulnerabilities, Article 22 to require climate-resilient development planning, Article 23 to address climate-fueled conflicts as peace and security issues, and Articles 60-61 to integrate modern climate science and international climate law into African human rights jurisprudence.
ACP and PALU invoke Article 4’s guarantee that “every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person” to establish that governments cannot stand by while climate change kills their citizens. PALU demonstrates that when governments fail to issue heat wave warnings, prepare for predictable floods, or build early warning systems for droughts, they violate this fundamental right to life. PALU’s strategy transforms Article 4 from protecting against direct government violence into requiring active government protection from climate threats, making it illegal for states to let people die from preventable climate disasters.
ACP and PALU utilize Article 16’s “right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health” to mandate comprehensive government action on climate-related diseases. ACP and PALU document how climate change expands malaria zones, increases waterborne diseases, causes heat-related deaths, and triggers mental health crises from displacement. The Court is invited to clarify the governments’ obligations to not only treat climate-related illnesses but also prevent them through climate adaptation, making Article 16 a tool for forcing proactive health system preparation for climate impacts.
ACP and PALU place Article 24’s “right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development” at the center of their climate petition because it explicitly recognizes environmental quality as a fundamental human right. PALU interprets this article to require governments to maintain stable climate conditions, protect ecosystems from climate damage, and ensure environmental sustainability. PALU’s groundbreaking approach treats climate stability as essential to the “satisfactory environment” that Article 24 guarantees, making climate protection a constitutional obligation across Africa.
ACP and PALU harness Article 21’s protection of people’s rights to “freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources” to demand that governments stop foreign corporations from worsening climate impacts in Africa. ACP and PALU contend that when multinational companies extract fossil fuels or pollute African environments in ways that accelerate climate change, governments violate Article 21 by allowing foreign economic exploitation that destroys natural resources. This approach could force governments to reject climate-damaging foreign investments and demand climate reparations from wealthy polluting nations.
ACP and PALU link Article 22’s guarantee of “economic, social and cultural development” to climate change by showing how climate impacts destroy the foundation for sustainable development. ACP and PALU demonstrate that governments cannot fulfill Article 22 obligations while ignoring climate threats that devastate agriculture, disrupt economies, and undermine social stability. ACP and PALU’s approach require all development planning to incorporate climate resilience, making it illegal for governments to pursue short-term development that worsens long-term climate vulnerability.
PALU invokes Articles 2 and 3’s guarantees of non-discrimination and equal protection to demand that climate protection reach all communities regardless of wealth or location. PALU establishes that governments cannot provide early warning systems only to urban areas while abandoning rural communities or offer climate adaptation only to wealthy regions while neglecting poor ones. ACP and PALU’s interpretation make unequal climate protection a violation of fundamental equality principles, forcing governments to ensure climate justice across all populations.
PALU employs Articles 9, 10, and 11’s protections for information access, association, and assembly to shield environmental defenders and climate activists from government suppression. PALU establishes that people must be able to access climate data, form environmental organizations, and protest government climate failures without persecution. PALU’s strategy makes it illegal for governments to silence climate activism, hide environmental information, or prevent peaceful climate protests, creating essential democratic space for climate advocacy.
PALU utilizes Article 18’s requirements to “eliminate discrimination against women” and “ensure the protection of the rights of women and children” to demand gender-responsive climate action. PALU documents how women face 14 times higher death rates in climate disasters and children suffer unique climate vulnerabilities. ACP and PALU’s approach require governments to specifically design climate policies that address these disproportionate impacts, making gender-blind climate responses a violation of women’s and children’s rights.
PALU leverages Article 23’s guarantee of “national and international peace and security” to establish government duties to prevent climate-related conflicts. ACP and PALU demonstrate how climate change fuels resource wars, ethnic tensions, and regional instability across Africa. PALU’s strategy requires governments to address climate impacts that threaten peace, potentially mandating regional climate cooperation and conflict prevention measures as legal obligations rather than political choices.
PALU employs Articles 60 and 61’s provisions allowing interpretation through international law to bring cutting-edge climate science and global climate agreements into African human rights law. PALU uses these articles to incorporate Paris Agreement obligations, IPCC scientific findings, and international environmental law into their case. PALU’s approach allows the African Charter to evolve with modern understanding of climate threats, making the charter a living document that addresses 21st-century challenges.
The petition asks the African Court to clarify the legal obligations African governments have to
protect their citizens from climate change. The petition states that the impact of climate change
violates fundamental human rights guaranteed under the African Charter. This encompasses
the rights to life, health, and a satisfactory environment. This is monumental because it could
establish legally binding duties for governments to reduce emissions, implement early warning
systems, build climate resilience, and protect vulnerable populations. This gives citizens
enforceable legal tools to hold their governments accountable for climate inaction rather than
relying on voluntary commitments or political promises.
Through implementing a robust advocacy and communication strategy, the ACP has built a broad coalition, including PALU, the Environmental Lawyers Collective for Africa, Natural Justice, and other civil society organizations to coordinate and entrench continent-wide support for climate accountability. Their strategy centers on grounding the petition firmly on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and ensuring all participating partners are amplifying the key issues entrenched in the petition.
The petition highlights which groups are most vulnerable to climate change and states that
African countries have an obligation to protect these groups. This includes women and girls who are 14 times more likely to die in climate disasters, children, and indigenous people whose lands are threatened by both climate change and non-consensual carbon offset projects. This also includes those fighting to protect the environment and elderly populations. The petition asks for legal obligation to protect these groups through inclusive climate decision making and targeted vulnerability assessments.
The petition addresses corporate and historical responsibility by highlighting how 168 companies are responsible for 78.4% of the global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The petition
indicates that African countries have a duty under the African charter to protect their borders
and people from the greed and exploitation of multinational corporations operating in their borders. The petition mandates that African governments mandate compensation for loss, damage, and for reparation for historically high-emitting countries.
The petition emphasizes intergenerational equity because climate change is fundamentally about time. Current emissions determine the world future generations will inherit. This makes it a violation of children’s and future generations’ rights to life, health, and development. The
petition argues that African states must manage natural resources sustainably to ensure
they remain available for future generations rather than allowing short-term exploitation. This allows for a legal framework that could prevent governments from prioritizing immediate economic gains over long-term environmental and social sustainability.
This would be the first comprehensive advisory opinion on climate obligations from a regional human rights court. This could impact how other regional bodies operate and provide a template for climate litigation worldwide that centers human rights rather than just technical
emissions targets. The opinion could establish important precedents for holding both states and private corporations accountable for climate harm. This provides a framework for protecting vulnerable populations in climate policies, strengthening legal arguments for loss and damage compensation internationally, and influencing how courts globally view government obligations to protect future generations. This will also carry significant moral weight as African governments contribute the least to climate change yet suffer the most from the effects.
