The long-awaited 34^th edition of the Christof Heyns African Moot Court Competition took place at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, from 29 June to 5 July 2025. The winners of this year’s competition were the combined team from the University of Nairobi, Kenya, and Instituto Superior de Ciências e Tecnologia de Moçambique, Mozambique. The University of Nairobi was represented by Mwiti Edna Nkirote and Dickson Gitonga, while Délcia de Albertina Julião and Miguel Enzo Antonio represented Instituto Superior de Ciências e Tecnologia de Moçambique.

The runners-up were the British University in Egypt, represented by Hala Ezzeldin and Seif Ezzat, and the Université Catholique d’Afrique de l’Ouest, represented by Monké Jude Samuel-Élie Gnanzi and Yah Arielle Mariame Touré.

The final round took place at J & J Conferences, Belmont Square, where the competing teams argued before a bench of six eminent judges. Presiding Judge, Judge CMJ Fortuin (Western Cape Division) was joined by Professor Catherine Maia (Professor of International Law, Lusófona University), Justice Duncan Gaswaga (Judge at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights), Dr Solomon Dersso (Commissioner at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights), Professor Benyam Mezmur (Chairperson, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child), and Mr Kissi Agyebeng (Special Prosecutor of Ghana).

Co-host: UCT

For this edition, UCT served as co-host of the competition. Professor Danwood Chirwa, Dean of the Faculty of Law, played a pivotal role in the event’s success. He was supported by Mrs Faiza Mohamed, and a dedicated team of staff members. The Centre for Human Rights (CHR), University of Pretoria, also gratefully acknowledges the commitment of UCT student volunteers who provided on-the-ground support throughout the week.

Moot Conference provides forum for discussion on mobility and human rights teaching

An International Hybrid Conference linked to and as part of the 34^th Christof Heyns African Human Rights Moot Competition was held on 30 June 2025. It took place at the Faculty of Law of the UCT, the co-host, together with the CHR, University of Pretoria, of the 2025 Moot.  Simultaneous interpretation into English, French and Portuguese enabled participants from across the continent to be part of the discussions.

The Conference brought together scholars, and legal and human rights practitioners teaching and practicing in the field of human rights, to discuss some of the most relevant human rights concerns of our time, including issues such as statelessness, the civil and political rights of non-citizens, and the limitations and opportunities inherent in the teaching of the African human rights system. Moderators were Sheryl Kunaka and Professor Frans Viljoen, respectively. The keynote address was delivered by Justin MacDermott, the Regional Director of the International Organization for Migration sub-Regional Office for Southern Africa.

 In particular, the two themes on which presenters engaged were, “Statelessness and the exploration of the durability of citizenship and migrants’ right to political participation and protect” (Theme One) and “Teaching of and on the African human rights system” (Theme Two).

Under Theme One, which touches on an aspect of the 2025 Moot hypothetical case, Gloria Eguono Aigbadon and Itunu Kolade-Faseyi (Caleb University in Lagos, Nigeria), Daniel Ruhweza (Makerere University in Uganda), Wessel le Roux and Brian Chihera (University of the Western Cape in South Africa), and Arnaud Koffi (Université Paris Nanterre) made presentations. Their insightful presentations explored the intersectionality of rights and its influence on migrant protests led by African migrants, and the nature of rights that ought to accrue to migrants living in host countries and whether such rights should include the right to participate in political and civil spaces. The presentations included analyses that compared the status quo in various jurisdictions, and they sparked engaging debates on migrant entitlements.

Under Theme Two, the presenters were Micha Wiebusch (the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights; University of Cape Town in South Africa), Teuka Thelma Tembo (University of Malawi, in Malawi), and Trésor Makunya Muhindo (Université de Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Presentations under this theme considered the role of legal clinics in integrating the African human rights system into legal education. The discussion illustrated the potential avenues for improved teaching in and of the African human rights system, and enabled spirited engagement on how limitations could be addressed.  It was suggested that a network of African law schools be established to focus on curriculum development and teaching of the African human rights system. Such a network would be a vehicle to pool best practices and engage in critical exchanges on the most suitable content, curriculum and pedagogical approaches for the teaching of African human rights law on the African continent.

Opening Ceremony

Later in the evening, the opening ceremony took place at the Law Building. The keynote speech was given by Alan Richard Winde, the current Premier of the Western Cape. Welcoming remarks were also shared by UCT Vice-Chancellor Professor Mosa Moshabela and University of Pretoria Vice-Chancellor Professor Francis Petersen.

Preliminary Rounds

This year saw participation from 57 universities: 41 Anglophone, 9 Francophone and 7 Lusophone teams. Among the new entrants were Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (Morocco), Eduvos (South Africa), Varsity College (South Africa), Universite Kongo (DRC), Universidade Wutivi (Mozambique) and Victoria University (Uganda) marking their debut in the competition.

The preliminary rounds involved all participating teams arguing the hypothetical case four times: twice as Applicant and twice as Respondent. The rounds were held separately in English, French and Portuguese. The panels of judges were made up of human rights lecturers and lawyers. Scores were awarded based on the following criteria:

• Knowledge of facts
• Articulation and correct analysis of issues
• Familiarity with international law, with preference for African authorities
• Persuasiveness
• Ingenuity
• Organisation
• Ability to respond to questions

Top 10 English Teams

Top 5 French Teams

Top 5 Portuguese Teams

Top 10 English Memorials

Top 5 French Memorials

Top 5 Portuguese Memorials

Top 10 English Oralists

Top 5 French Oralists

Top 5 Portuguese Oralists

Closing Ceremony

As the curtains fell on an incredible week, participants of the Moot Court  were treated to a grand closing dinner held at Akamah Estate, in Upper Constantia.

Support

The event would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the Millennium Trust and the European Union through the Global Campus of Human Rights. Their contributions were instrumental in bringing together students, academics, and legal professionals from across the continent and beyond.

2026 Moot Court Competition

The 2026 edition of the Christof Heyns African Human Rights Moot Court Competition will be hosted in Ivory Coast. This marks the competition’s return to the West African region, following its successful hosting in East Africa (Rwanda) in 2024 and in Southern Africa (South Africa) in 2025.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE CONFERENCE

The International Organization for Migration (the “IOM”) produced their annual report on the global situation of migration in 2024 (the “Report”). The Report indicates that the quantity of international migrants has increased during the past 50 years,¹ with the estimate of international migrants sitting at 281 million migrants in 2020.² This figure accounts for 3.6% of the global population,³ which is an incremental increase from the 2.3% of the global population that international migrants reflected in 1970.⁴ Individuals who have been displaced due to conflict, or persecution or disaster comprise of a
smaller proportion of international migrants, whilst the majority of international migrants move for reasons of “work, family, and study.”⁵

A rise in migration has resulted in the adoption of much stricter migration policies and legal frameworks that treat migration as a threat to national security. Accordingly, more and more states are linking migration and security “through misinformed ‘threat’ narratives that seek to paint international migrants as endangering countries and communities”.⁶ In this process, migrants are being “othered” and treated as individuals to whom different legal regimes are applicable. This has the potential to adversely impact the fundamental rights to which migrants are believed to be entitled, like the right to a nationality, and the right to fight for those rights.

Theme 1: Statelessness and the exploration of the durability of citizenship and migrants’ right to political participation and protest

In today’s post-World War II global order, it is certainly true that the arbitrary, and mass deprivation of citizenship by sovereign states is less likely to occur. This is due, in part, to the fact that denationalization is seen as “abhorrent to the ‘rules-based international order’”⁷ and primarily associated with totalitarian regimes.⁸ It is also due in large part to the fact that the arbitrary deprivation of one’s nationality is now explicitly prohibited under international law.⁹

In order to overcome the hurdle of arbitrariness, more and more states are creating legal bases on which to strip their citizens of their nationality, by adopting legislation that permits denationalization on the grounds of “national security” and “counter-terrorism”, and enabling the denationalization of, among others, individuals suspected of so-called terrorist conduct.¹⁰ Some scholars argue that denationalization practices are illustrative of a weaponization of citizenship,¹¹ as seen through the targeting of dissidents and individuals whose conduct does not align with the politics of the state. A current and relevant example of the stripping of legal status on these bases can be seen in the United States of America (USA), where the state is undertaking detention and deportation practices that are targeting individuals legally present in the USA, but who have expressed support for the plight of the people of Palestine.¹²

The prevalence of denationalization practices calls for the exploration of the concept of citizenship, and a determination of the extent to which citizenship can be said to be durable in nature. It also calls for a consideration of the distinct implications of denationalization on migrants that acquire citizenship through means other than birth. What does it mean to be a citizen? Is citizenship a right or a privilege? Does citizenship bestow a sense of belonging and identity that is taken away when the status is stripped from the individual? Are there legal and/or ethical considerations, other than the potential for statelessness, that states should take into account when determining whether to revoke citizenship?
In most democracies, the right to vote is reserved for citizens,¹³ even though the practice of extending this right to non-citizens is becoming more common.¹⁴ However, the right to freedom of expression is not limited to citizens.

Migrants who fight for better living and working conditions, access to socio-economic rights, and service delivery are increasingly being branded as undesirable or underserving of any form of durable status. All of the aforementioned issues in respect of which a migrant may find it necessary to voice their views in public platforms are often issues that affect all individuals living in a state—the only difference is that those to whom the right to vote is extended have an opportunity, through the exercise of that right, to dictate the identity of the officials that will represent them and who will contribute to addressing some of those issues.

Do migrants have an equal right to the realization of basic human rights within their host state, and if so, how should they fight against the violation of such rights? Given their precarious position within society, should greater emphasis be placed on providing them with the ability to speak up when actions of the state are violating their human rights? And should the right to vote be an entitlement that accrues to migrants?

Theme 2: Teaching of and on the African human rights system

The second session explore challenges to, and best practices on, the teaching of the African human rights system at African universities. A low level of awareness has long been one of the challenges associated with the African Charter and its monitoring body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. One of the core ambitions of the African Moot Competition has been to increase awareness among new generations of African lawyers, and to advance the teaching on the African human rights system by anchoring the African human rights system within the curricula of law schools on the continent, and by using the Moot as a teaching tool.

This year marks 30 years since the Moot expanded to the whole region and took on the name ‘All Africa Human Rights Moot Competition’. It presents a distinct opportunity to take stock, share experiences and reinvigorate teaching on the African human rights system. Relevant questions to consider include: To what extent do undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at universities in Africa include the African human rights system? What challenges have been encountered in introducing and delivering such programmes? Are there some best practices on teaching the African human rights system that others can learn from?