56 Anyangwe/Right to self-determination under the African Charter documents affirm the right to self-determination and commit African states to the eradication of all forms of colonialism.24 African countries fear that self-determination in post-colonial Africa could destabilise African states as inherited from colonisation. This exposes the fragility or even ‘artificiality’ of many African states. However, contrary to what has been suggested by some writers25 African states have never unanimously, or even in the majority, subscribed to the view that selfdetermination applies only to African peoples under European colonisation. At least three African states recognised Biafra de jure, and some other states recognised it de facto.26 Since then, a number of successful self-determination claims have arisen in post-independence Africa, such as Eritrea, the Western Sahara, and South Sudan. Three types of self-determination cases have come before the Commission. In one type the right to self-determination is alleged to have been violated, but the variant of self-determination involved is not mentioned, although a perusal of the facts suggests that some aspect of internal self-determination was at issue: Sir Dawda Jawara v Gambia;27 and DRC v Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda.28 The Commission has found little difficulty in upholding the right to internal self-determination but, unfortunately, without specifying its core content; that is to say, without indicating that internal selfdetermination has to do with constitutional autonomy, as well as with economic, social and cultural development. In the second type of selfdetermination cases a constituent part of a sovereign state asserts territorial self-determination consisting in a right to establish a separate independent state, in fact a secessionist self-determination claim: Cabinda v Angola;29 Katanga v Zaire.30 In a third type, recolonisation is alleged and it is argued that this situation gives rise to an indisputable right to decolonisation as in the case of white colonisation: Kevin Ngwang Gumne et al v Cameroun.31 In all these cases political, (cultural as well, in Gumne), social and economic oppression or domination is additionally alleged. In Katanga and in Gumne 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 In the preamble to the African Charter, African states reaffirm the pledge in Article II (1)(d) of the OAU Charter “to eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa” and affirm that they are conscious “of their duty to achieve the total liberation of Africa” and to eliminate colonialism, neo-colonialism, and apartheid. Including McCorquodale (n 6) 592; J Dugard ‘Secession: is the case of Yugoslavia a precedent for Africa? (1993) 5 RADIC 163; T Boven ‘The relationship between peoples’ rights and human rights in the African Charter’ (1986) 7 Human Rights Law Journal 183. Gabon, Ivory Coast and Tanzania recognised the ‘Republic of Biafra’ de jure. Zambia, Equatorial Guinea and France gave de facto recognition by welcoming visiting Biafra officials. France in addition actively supported Biafra through weapons supply. (2000) AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000). Communication 227/99, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 20th Annual Activity Report (2006) (DRC case). Communication 24/89, Union National de Liberation de Cabinda v Angola, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 7th Annual Activity Report. Katangese Peoples’ Congress v Zaire (2000) AHRLR 72 (ACHPR 1995). Gumne (n 22).