The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of the Seychelles, the Court, is provided for under different provisions of the Constitution. Article 46 deals with the circumstances in which a person may approach the Court to enforce human rights. It also deals with the powers of the Court in this context. In this article, I illustrate how the Court, when enforcing or applying Article 46, has dealt with the following issues: locus standi to petition the Court; circumstances in which the Court's jurisdiction is excluded or limited; powers of the Court in protecting human rights, circumstances in which other courts may refer matters to the Constitutional Court and procedural access to the Court and the burden to prove human rights violations. It is observed that for a person to have locus standi under Article 46(1), there has to be a real likelihood that his/her right will be violated. A remote possibility of a violation does not trigger Article 46(1). It is observed further that the right under Article 46(1) is not absolute; although the word ‘may’ is used under Article 46(3), the Court is obliged to decline being seized with a matter in case the applicant has obtained redress from another court; since the constitution is silent on the burden of proof in cases where a private individual is alleged to have violated a human right, the burden should be on the applicant to prove such a violation; and that the Rules of the Court which require that an action alleging a violation of human rights has to be filed within three months of the violation may have to be amended to create exceptions for continuing violations of human rights and for the violation of non-derogable rights.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
