313/05 : Kenneth Good / Republic of Botswana Summary of the Complaint 1. The complaint is submitted by INTERIGHTS, Anton Katz and Max du Plessis (Complainants) on behalf of Mr Kenneth Good (victim), against the Republic of Botswana (Respondent State). 2. The complaint states that Mr Kenneth Good, an Australian national, teaching at the University of st Botswana, had his employment terminated after his expulsion from Botswana on 31 May 2005. 3. It is submitted that in February 2005, in his capacity as Professor of Political Studies at the University of Botswana, the victim co-authored an article concerning presidential succession in Botswana. The article criticised the Government, and concluded that Botswana is a poor example of African presidential succession. th 4. The Complainants submit that, on 18 February 2005, the President of Botswana, exercising the powers vested in him by section 7(f) of the Botswana Immigration Act, decided to declare the victim an undesirable inhabitant of, or visitor to, Botswana. The victim was not given reasons for this decision, nor was he given any opportunity to contest it. th 5. On 7 March 2005, the victim launched a constitutional challenge in the Botswana High Court. On st 31 May 2005, the High Court dismissed the application ruling that Section 7 (f) of the Botswana Immigration Act relates to what the President considers to be in the best interest of Botswana, and Sections 11(6) and 36 of the same Act make the President’s declaration unassailable on the merits. st 6. On 31 May 2005, the victim was deported from Botswana to South Africa. th 7. On 7 June 2005, the victim filed a notice and grounds of appeal in the Court of Appeal of the th Republic of Botswana. On 27 July 2005, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment dismissing the victim’s appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the President, in making such declarations, is empowered to act in what he considers to be the best interest of the country, without judicial oversight. 8. The Complainants submit that the Court of Appeal is the highest judicial authority in Botswana. No further right of appeal or challenge lies from the decision of this court. Complaint 9. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 7 (1) (a), 9, 12 (4), and 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Procedure th 10. The communication was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on 24 November 2005. th st th 11. During the 38 Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2006, the African Commission was seized of the communication. th 12. On 15 December 2005, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties accordingly and requested them to submit arguments on admissibility. The Secretariat of the African Commission forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Respondent State. th 13. On 13 March 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission received written submissions on admissibility from the Complainants. th 14. By Note Verbale dated 5 April 2006, the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the Complainants’ submission on admissibility to the Respondent State and reminded the latter to submit its arguments on the same. th 15. On 18 April 2006, the Secretariat received an e-mail from one of the lawyers of the alleged th victim requesting to be invited to make oral submission at the 39 Ordinary Session. th 16. On 6 May 2006, the Secretariat received the submission on admissibility from the Respondent State.

Select target paragraph3