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.

CONTEXTE ET OBJECTIF DE LA CONFÉRENCE

L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a publié en 2024 son rapport annuel sur la situation mondiale des migrations (le “Rapport”). Ce rapport indique que le nombre de migrants internationaux a augmenté au cours des 50 dernières années,¹ atteignant 281 millions en 2020.² Ce chiffre représente 3,6 % de la population mondiale,³ contre 2,3 % en 1970.⁴ Une minorité de ces personnes a été déplacée pour des raisons de conflit, de persécution ou de catastrophe, tandis que la majorité migre pour des motifs liés au travail, à la famille ou aux études.⁵

Cette augmentation des migrations a entraîné l’adoption de politiques migratoires et de cadres juridiques plus restrictifs, qui considèrent la migration comme une menace à la sécurité nationale. De plus en plus d’États associent migration et sécurité en “diffusant des récits erronés visant à présenter les migrants comme un danger pour les pays et les communautés”.⁶ Dans ce processus, les migrants sont marginalisés et soumis à des régimes juridiques différents, ce qui risque de porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux auxquels ils ont droit, tels que le droit à une nationalité et le droit de défendre ces droits.

Thème 1: L’apatridie et l’exploration de la durabilité de la citoyenneté et du droit des migrants à la participation politique et à la protestation

Dans l’ordre mondial de l’après-Seconde Guerre mondiale, la privation arbitraire et massive de la citoyenneté par des États souverains est devenue moins fréquente. Cela s’explique notamment par le fait que la dénationalisation est perçue comme “abjecte vis-à-vis de l’ordre international fondé sur des règles”⁷ et reste étroitement associée aux régimes totalitaires.⁸ De plus, la privation arbitraire de la
nationalité est désormais explicitement interdite par le droit international.⁹

Cependant, pour contourner l’obstacle de l’arbitraire, de nombreux États ont adopté des bases juridiques permettant de retirer la nationalité sur des motifs de “sécurité nationale” ou de “lutte contre le terrorisme”, visant notamment les personnes soupçonnées de comportement terroriste.¹⁰

Certains chercheurs y voient une instrumentalisation de la citoyenneté,¹¹ notamment par le ciblage des dissidents ou des individus dont les opinions ou actions ne concordent pas avec les politiques de l’État. Un exemple actuel est observable aux États-Unis, où des personnes légalement présentes sont détenues ou expulsées pour avoir exprimé leur soutien à la cause palestinienne.¹²

La recrudescence des pratiques de dénationalisation soulève des questions fondamentales: dans quelle mesure la citoyenneté est-elle un droit durable? Que signifie être citoyen? La citoyenneté est-elle un droit ou un privilège? Confère-t-elle une identité et un sentiment d’appartenance supprimés lors de la révocation de ce statut? Quelles considérations éthiques ou juridiques, en dehors du risque d’apatridie, les États devraient-ils prendre en compte?

Dans la plupart des démocraties, le droit de vote est réservé aux citoyens, bien que certains États commencent à l’étendre aux non-citoyens. En revanche, la liberté d’expression n’est pas limitée à la citoyenneté.

Les migrants, lorsqu’ils revendiquent de meilleures conditions de vie, d’accès aux droits socio- économiques ou à des services publics, sont souvent perçus comme indésirables ou indignes d’un statut pérenne. Or les préoccupations qu’ils expriment touchent toutes les personnes vivant dans un État – la différence étant que seuls les citoyens peuvent désigner leurs représentants.

Les migrants ont-ils un droit égal à la réalisation des droits fondamentaux dans leur pays d’accueil ? Devrait-on leur garantir des voies d’expression face aux atteintes à leurs droits? Le droit de vote
devrait-il leur être accordé? Dans la plupart des démocraties, le droit de vote est réservé aux citoyens,¹³ bien que la pratique d’étendre ce droit aux non-citoyens devienne de plus en plus courante.¹⁴

Thème 2: Enseignement du système africain des droits de l’homme

La deuxième session explorera les défis, obstacles et meilleures pratiques dans l’enseignement du système africain des droits de l’homme dans
les universités africaines. Le manque de sensibilisation à la Charte africaine et à son organe de suivi – la Commission africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples – constitue un défi de longue date.

L’un des objectifs clés du Concours africain de procès simulé est de sensibiliser les nouvelles générations de juristes africains et de faire progresser l’enseignement du système africain des droits de l’homme, en intégrant ce système dans les programmes universitaires et en utilisant le Concours comme outil pédagogique.

Cette année marque le 30e anniversaire de l’expansion du Concours à l’ensemble du continent. Cela offre une occasion unique de faire le point, de partager les expériences et de dynamiser l’enseignement du système africain des droits humains. Parmi les questions pertinentes: dans quelle mesure les programmes de licence et de master en droit incluent-ils le système africain? Quels défis ont été rencontrés dans l’introduction ou l’enseignement de ces programmes? Existe-t-il des bonnes pratiques à partager entre universités?

1 International Organisation for Migration World Migration Report 2024, 21 May 2020 at 21 available at: https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2024iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2024 [last accessed 14 April 2025].
2 Ibid at 19.
3 Ibid at 22.
4 Ibid at 19. The migration that takes place in these circumstances is “mostly safe, orderly and regular.”
5 Ibid at 162.
6 Adams ‘Emerging Voices: Denationalization, International Justice, and the Principle of Good Faith’, Opinio Juris, available at: https://opiniojuris.org/2019/08/22/emerging-voices-denationalization-international-justice-and-the-princi-ple-of-good-faith/ple-of-good-faith/.
7 Prener ‘Denationalisation and Its Discontents – Citizenship Revocation in the 21st Century: Legal, Political and Moral Implications’ Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe vol 52 at 15 available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366964243_Denationalisation_and_Its_Discontents_Citizenship_Revocation_in_the_21st_Century_Legal_Political_and_Moral_Implicationslication/366964243_Denationalisation_and_Its_Discontents_Citizenship_Revocation_in_the_21st_Century_Legal_Political_and_Moral_Implications.
8 See for example Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 at 15(2).; American Convention on Human Rights, ‘Pact of San Jose’ 1969 at 20(3). Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Relating to the Specific Aspects of the Right to a Nationality and the Eradication of Statelessness in Africa 2024 at 3(2).
9 Maria Jose Recalde-Vela ‘Book Review: Denationalisation and its discontents: Citizenship Revocation in the 21st Century: Legal, Political and Moral Implications’ at 172 available at: file:///C:/Users/u14044481/Downloads/645-Article%20Text-2049-1-10-20240823%20(2).pdf.
10 Rainer Baubock ‘Weaponized Citizenship: Should International Law Restrict Oppressive Nationality Attribution?’, Global Citizenship Observatory, available at: https://globalcit.eu/weaponized-citizenship-should-international-law-restrict-oppressive-nationality-attribution/sive-nationality-attribution/.
11 Kate Selig ‘What We Know About the Detentions of Student Protesters’ The New York Times available at: https://www.ny-times.com/2025/03/27/us/students-trump-ice-detention.html. See also Recalde-Vela, supra n 10 at 172–3.
12 Patti Tamara Lenard ‘Residence and the Right to Vote’ (2015) 16 Journal of International Migration and Integration 119–32 at 119.
13 Elif Naz Kayran & Merve and Erdilmen ‘“When do states give voting rights to non-citizens? The role of population, policy, and politics on the timing of enfranchisement reforms in liberal democracies”’ (2021) 47 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2855–76 at 2855.