(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 57 statehood is furthermore claimed, but on fundamentally different grounds. 3.1 Internal self-determination at issue 3.1.1 Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (1995/96) In Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia, (Communications 147/95 and 149/96) the complainant alleged a violation of a number of rights in the Charter, including art 20, following the military coup d’état in The Gambia in July 1994. The Commission held that the coup d’état, even if it was without bloodshed, constituted a grave violation of the right of the people of The Gambia under article 20(1) to ‘freely to choose their government’. The Commission thus interpreted art 20(1) as involving the right of a people ‘freely to choose their government’ (internal selfdetermination). But that provision does not deal with the right to freely choose a government. It guarantees two core rights of peoples: the right to existence; and the right to self-determination, which entails the right of a people to ‘freely determine their political status and … pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’. Freely choosing a government is more of an electoral right and is not the same thing as freely choosing a political status. It is submitted that the Commission incorrectly interpreted the words ‘determination of political status’ to mean ‘freely choosing a government’, that is, voting a government into office. Jawara is nonetheless significant in its recognition of the availability of the right to self-determination (in its internal dimension) in a post-colonial context, at least in circumstances where the military have overthrown the established government of a country and seized power. Unconstitutional accession to power covers not only situations of coups d’état.32 It also covers cases of insurgency takeovers, and overstay in power through rigged elections. 3.1.2 Democratic Republic of Congo v Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda (1999) The inter-state communication Democratic Republic of Congo v Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda33 arose from the occupation of and activities in the eastern provinces of the DRC in 1998 by the armed forces of the three respondent states. The respondents did not deny their military occupation of the eastern DRC, but argued that the occupation was necessary in order for them to safeguard their interests. The Commission rejected this argument, holding that ‘such interests would better be protected within the confines of the territories of the 32 33 C Anyangwe Revolutionary overthrow of constitutional orders in Africa (2012). Communication 227/99, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 20th Annual Activity Report (2006) (DRC case).