The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is being asked to answer a question that could reshape how governments protect their citizens: What are African states' legal duties to safeguard their people from the climate crisis? The Pan African Lawyers Union and other African civil society organizations brought the landmark case, seeking court guidance on whether nations have a responsibility to move away from an economy that harms the environment and protect their countries' climate systems.
The request matters because Africa carries an enormous climate burden despite the smallest historical share of blame. The continent has made the least contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, yet it suffers disproportionately from devastating climate disasters—droughts, floods, heat waves, and rising sea levels—that threaten human health, food and water security, and economic development across entire nations. Climate change disrupts ecosystems, causes crop failures, deepens poverty, spreads disease, wipes out livelihoods, and erodes both cultural and natural heritage. For a continent working to lift billions of people out of poverty, climate impacts are not a distant threat; they are an immediate barrier to survival and progress.
The Mandela Institute and other organizations have submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a safe, stable climate is not a luxury—it is essential for realizing fundamental human rights. The brief contends that African governments have a legal duty to protect the climate system because development itself is impossible without it. Development in Africa, the organizations stress, cannot be measured only by economic growth or GDP figures. It must include the ability of people to shape their own futures by protecting their environment, communities, and culture. The African Charter itself enshrines these principles: Article 22 guarantees all people the right to economic, social, and cultural development, while Article 24 protects the right to a healthy environment that supports that development. Other continental agreements, including the Maputo Protocol protecting women's rights and the Algiers Convention on nature conservation, reinforce that development must be sustainable, fair, and balanced.
The brief makes a bold claim: the rights to development, self-determination, and peace cannot be realized in a rapidly warming world. It urges governments to cooperate and base climate decisions on the best available science, acknowledging Africa's particular vulnerability. It also calls for governments to have a legal duty to prevent serious damage to the climate system and to act urgently and carefully as risks grow. Critically, the brief argues that fossil fuel projects must be phased out, noting they have undermined people's rights in the past and will continue to do so unless nations change course.
Advisory opinions are not legally binding, but they carry weight: they clarify what countries are already required to do under international law and guide how courts apply those rules. They can reshape how governments, businesses, and the public understand their responsibilities. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a similar advisory opinion stating that governments have legal obligations to protect the climate system and prevent serious environmental harm. If the African Court reaches a comparable conclusion, it could crystallize the continent's legal argument that climate action and human rights are inseparable—and that African governments must act to protect both.