The African Court’s Ogiek Compliance Decision: A Turning Point for Indigenous Land Rights in Africa?

Ms Lucy Claridge

Lucy is the Executive Director of the International Lawyers Project. Previously, she served as Senior Counsel and led the Strategic Legal Response Centre at Forest Peoples Programme, supporting forest and Indigenous communities in legal battles over land and livelihood rights across international, regional, and domestic courts. She has also been the Director of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International and Legal Director at Minority Rights Group International. Her work has established significant legal precedents before African and European human rights institutions and national courts. In 2022, her case, Amnesty International v Togo, received Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression Prize. She is a Visiting Fellow at Bristol University’s Human Rights Implementation Centre and chairs the Rainforest Foundation UK.

Introduction

On 4 December 2025, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) issued its first-ever compliance decision, formally holding that the Republic of Kenya had failed to comply with its 2017 merits judgment and its 2022 reparations judgment in the Ogiek case.

The Ogiek, an Indigenous community of Kenya, had successfully challenged the denial of their land rights before the AfCHPR, with merits and reparations judgments issued in their favour in 2017 and 2022, respectively. As the first Indigenous Peoples’ rights case considered by the Court, it created a major legal precedent - and has therefore been central to the development of African Indigenous jurisprudence. The case is significant as it goes beyond restitution or land rights, considering issues of legal accountability, environmental protection, state compliance with international judgments, and the evolving jurisprudence on collective rights.

The AfCHPR compliance ruling is more than a procedural update. It is a decisive statement on the enforceability of African Court judgments and the Court’s willingness to monitor and demand implementation. With international judgments often suffering from an enforcement gap, this ruling affirms the authority of the Court’s ruling and is crucial for the survival of the Ogiek as an Indigenous People.

This blog post provides an overview of the Ogiek’s litigation journey, reviews the compliance decision and examines its legal and political implications, and considers what may come next for the Ogiek community, Kenya, and the African human rights system.

Background: The 2017 Merits Judgment

The Ogiek dispute arose from decades of evictions, forced displacement and restrictions on the community’s access to their ancestral lands in Kenya’s Mau Forest, which the state has claimed is necessary for conservation – although in reality, much of the land has been destroyed for commercial logging, tea plantations, and allocated to non-Ogiek settlers to gain political favour. Numbering approximately 52,000, the Ogiek are some of Africa’s last remaining forest dwellers. Traditionally honey-gatherers, they survive mainly on wild fruits and roots, game hunting and traditional beekeeping. They have a unique way of life well-adapted to the forest. In fact, the term ‘Ogiek’ literally means ‘caretaker of all plants and wild animals’. The survival of the indigenous Mau Forest is therefore inextricably linked with the survival of the Ogiek.

In 2009, facing a new wave of evictions, the Ogiek decided to lodge a case against their government before the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights; this was later referred to the AfCHPR (Application 006/2012, ACHPR v Kenya). The Ogiek argued that the evictions violated their rights to property, natural resources, development, non-discrimination and religion under the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (the ‘African Charter’) and threatened their cultural survival.

In May 2017, the AfCHPR ruled decisively in the Ogiek’s favour. The Court affirmed that the Ogiek are an Indigenous People with a distinct cultural, spiritual, and historical connection to the Mau Forest. As a result, it found that Kenya had violated multiple rights protected by the African Charter, including Article 14 (right to property), Article 17(2) and (3) (right to culture), Article 21 (right to natural resources), Article 22 (right to development), Article 8 (right to freedom of religion) and Article 2 (non-discrimination and equality). Importantly, the Court clarified that the preservation of the Mau Forest could not justify the lack of recognition of the Ogiek’s Indigenous or tribal status nor the denial of the rights associated with that status. It also explicitly confirmed that the Ogiek could not be held responsible for the depletion of the Mau Forest, nor could the Government use conservation to justify their eviction or the denial of access to their land. The ruling, therefore, had wide ramifications for other Indigenous Peoples in Africa and beyond, affirming the role they can and should play in protecting biodiversity.

The Government was also ordered to take all appropriate measures within a reasonable timeframe to remedy all the violations established and to inform the Court of the measures taken within 6 months of the date of the judgment.

The 2022 Reparations Judgment

During the merits proceedings, the Ogiek requested - and were granted - a separate Court ruling on reparations. The case remained pending before the AfCHPR under its reparations process, with both parties making written submissions, and an oral hearing on reparations scheduled for early 2020. In the event, the hearing was postponed several times: firstly at the request of the Kenyan government, and then due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In June 2021, the Court ordered that it would decide the matter based solely on the parties’ written pleadings and submissions. The government, however, used these delays to continue evicting, harassing, and intimidating the Ogiek, in spite of the merits judgment already issued in their favour, claiming that the evictions were necessary to its implementation.

In June 2022, the Court delivered the reparations judgment, confirming that the Ogiek are an Indigenous People whose rights have been violated by their government, specifying the remedies that the Kenyan government must grant the Ogiek, and ordering the Kenyan government to:

1. pay the Ogiek 157.85 million Kenyan Shillings as collective compensation for material and moral damages suffered, to be paid into a community development fund for the benefit of the Ogiek;

2. return the Ogiek’s ancestral lands in the Mau Forest via collective title within two years through a delimiting, demarcation and titling exercise in consultation with the Ogiek;

3. commence a dialogue and consultation process with the Ogiek and any concerned parties in relation to any concessions and/or leases granted over Ogiek lands to decide whether these would continue by way of lease or benefit-sharing agreement or be returned to the Ogiek with compensation to concerned third parties;

4. adopt all necessary measures to ensure the full recognition of the Ogiek as an Indigenous people of Kenya;

5. adopt all necessary measures to ensure the Ogiek are effectively consulted, in accordance with their traditions and/or their right to give or withhold their free, prior and informed consent, in relation to any development, conservation or investment projects on Ogiek lands;

6. ensure full consultation with the Ogiek, in accordance with their traditions and customs, in the reparations process as a whole; and

7. adopt all necessary measures to give full effect to the judgment as a means of guaranteeing the non-repetition of violations;

8. publish, within six months, the official summaries of the merits and reparations judgments in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of wide circulation, as well as the full merits and reparations judgments, together with their summaries, on an official government website for a period of at least one year; and

9. submit a report on the status of implementation of the reparations judgment within one year of the judgment.

The AfCHPR also determined that it would remain actively engaged in overseeing the implementation of both the merits and reparations judgments, holding that it would conduct a compliance hearing on a date to be appointed 12 months from the date of the reparations judgment. This was a very positive development in both the journey to secure reparations for the Ogiek and in upholding the rule of law. It is indicative of the Court’s willingness, as the continent’s primary judicial body for protecting human and peoples’ rights, to ensure that states comply with the judgments it delivers and that victims of human rights violations receive the reparations due to them for harm suffered.

The reparations judgment deepens African jurisprudence on Indigenous land rights by affirming that Indigenous land tenure is collective, not individual; that such rights include cultural, spiritual, and environmental dimensions; and that restitution of land requires not only access but also secure, legally enforceable title. As such, the ruling was viewed globally as one of the most advanced recognitions of collective Indigenous land rights in Africa.

The 2025 Compliance Hearing

Despite the AfCHPR’s very clear and precise rulings, implementation of the Court’s orders has stalled. Of more concern, and as contended by the Ogiek during the June 2025 compliance hearing, the Kenyan government has taken actions that actively contravene both judgments and undermine their implementation, which the Ogiek claim comprise continuing and new violations of the Ogiek’s rights, in violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. This included ongoing evictions, continued allocation of Ogiek land to third parties, and a complete failure to undertake any meaningful consultations with the Ogiek in order to achieve implementation.

The Court initially convened the compliance hearing for November 2024. However, at the very beginning of that hearing, the Kenyan government requested the AfCHPR issue an adjournment of at least three months to enable it to file a report on the steps that it has taken to comply with the judgments, stating that its failure to file this report was largely due to recent changes in its government. Although this request was strongly opposed by the African Commission, on the Ogiek’s behalf, the AfCHPR granted the government’s request, eventually rescheduling the hearing for 4 June 2025.

During the June 2025 hearing, the Ogiek (via the African Commission) drew the Court’s attention to the recent forced evictions and burning of Ogiek homes, to the titling of Ogiek land to non-Ogiek, and to the lack of meaningful efforts towards implementation, including the failure to gazette and publish the judgments, the failure to recognise the Ogiek, the failure to adequately consult them in accordance with their tradition and customs and/or in accordance with the right to give or withhold their free, prior and informed consent, and the overall failure to implement the judgments, show good faith towards the Ogiek, and respect their right to lead a life of dignity. They also sought an order for provisional measures to prevent ongoing violations.

The Government of Kenya stated that it was committed to implementation, claiming that reforms were underway through task forces, conservation policy updates, and discussions within the Ministry of Lands, and claiming that it had partially complied with the judgment by recognising the Ogiek through enumerating them as a distinct community within the 2019 census.

The December 2025 Compliance Decision

On 4 December 2025, the AfCHPR delivered its compliance decision, finding that the Republic of Kenya had failed to fully comply with its previous judgments.

The 2025 ruling held that Kenya remained in breach of its obligations under both earlier judgments. The AfCHPR confirmed that its jurisdiction to conduct a status of implementation hearing is grounded in Rule 81(3) of its Rules, Article 30 of the African Court Protocol and Article 1 of the African Charter and that this compliance monitoring complements the AU Executive Council’s role, and was clear that a state cannot invoke its domestic laws to justify a breach of international law. The Court then went on to assess the government’s compliance with its 2017 merits judgment, finding that the measures taken so far did not adequately resolve the core violations identified in that judgment.

Ogiek community members at the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights on 4 December 2025. Photo credit: Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program.

Specifically, the AfCHPR ruled that the Kenyan government had failed to pay a single shilling of the material or moral damages ordered in 2022, and to establish the Community Development Fund; that it had failed to complete – or even properly begin - the process of identifying, delimiting, and collectively titling Ogiek ancestral lands, despite the establishment of several committees and task forces; and that such a process should be clear and consultative and following a realistic, time-bound path. Similarly, no dialogue had been initiated with third parties regarding leases or concessions on Ogiek ancestral land.

In relation to the order to recognise the Ogiek, the AfCHPR stressed that full and effective recognition requires that the Ogiek should exercise their rights on an equal basis with others, and, as this had not yet been achieved, the order had not yet been fully implemented. Having considered evidence submitted prior to and during the hearing, which suggested that major decisions about Ogiek land were taken without seeking the community’s free, prior and informed consent, the AfCHPR reiterated that consultation with Indigenous Peoples must be meaningful, culturally appropriate and continuous, and must respect their own decision-making structures. As such, the Court considered that its orders on consultation and non-repetition had not been fully implemented.

Finally, the AfCHPR found that, despite explicit instructions, the government had failed to publish the 2017 or 2022 judgments in the Kenya Gazette, and rejected the government’s explanation that the political transition had delayed this process.

As a result of the failure to comply with its previous judgments, the AfCHPR ordered that the government must take steps to immediately pay the compensation due, restitute Ogiek land (including resolving issues where Ogiek land is occupied by others), ensure full recognition and effective consultation of Ogiek in the reparations process as a whole, and immediately publish both judgments and their summaries.

The AfCHPR also ordered the Kenyan government to submit a detailed implementation plan within six months, including timelines, responsible institutions, land-titling methodology, mechanisms for reparations and safeguards against further evictions.

The Court, however, declined to impose sanctions or provisional measures, deciding that full compliance with the judgments would address the harms that the Ogiek allege, and signalling an expectation that the Kenyan government must now implement the rulings without delay.

Legal and Political Significance of the Decision

The Ogiek compliance decision clearly demonstrates the Court’s willingness to monitor implementation, confirming its authority to hold states in violation of its judgments and its capacity to issue further binding orders. The ruling specifically strengthens the Court’s message that states cannot selectively implement judgments. This establishes an important precedent for all African states subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.

Of significance to the Ogiek, the AfCHPR was unequivocal that the government must stop and desist from any action or conduct that may, in any other way, undermine the judgments. Implementing these rulings is therefore not simply just following the orders within the judgments - it requires respect for the spirit of the judgments and the Ogiek’s rights as an Indigenous People.

Kenya’s reluctance to implement the Ogiek judgments is not unique. Compliance requires a political commitment that may conflict with powerful domestic and international interests. Across Africa, governments often resist collective land titling because it challenges state ownership assumptions and the ‘accepted’ model, which centralises control over forests and mineral resources, and threatens lucrative land-use concessions. Demarcating ancestral lands in the Mau Forest is also complex due to overlapping claims, historical forest degradation, and existing concessions, but complexity cannot excuse non-compliance with a binding judgment, a point the Court repeatedly makes. In addition, the Ogiek have developed a roadmap towards restitution (submitted to the Court as part of the reparations process) which provides a systematic process through which land would be returned under a number of communal land titles, and under an agreed set of bylaws which they will follow to protect and preserve the land. The collective title would be granted pursuant to Kenyan law and procedure, including under the Community Land Act, which gives effect to Article 63 of the Constitution. It is a model that other Indigenous communities and states can follow. 

For a community that has faced near-continuous dispossession for over a century, this case - and the AfCHPR’s most recent ruling - rekindles hope that justice denied for generations might finally be realised. For Kenya, it presents a chance to demonstrate leadership in Indigenous rights and environmental stewardship. It is hoped that the government of Kenya will now act to implement the ruling, which requires both political will and active government-community partnership. The Court’s credibility is intertwined with Kenya’s next steps.

The Human Rights in Context Blog is a platform which provides an academic space for discussion for those interested in human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. We are always interested in well-written and thoughtful comments and analyses on topical events or developments. Scholars from all disciplines, students, researchers, international and national civil servants, legislators and politicians, legal practitioners and judges are welcome to participate in the discussions. We warmly invite those interested in writing a post to send us an e-mail explaining briefly the relevance of the topic and your background as an expert. We will get back to you as quickly as we can. All contributors post in their individual capacity, and their opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Rights in Context, or any organisation with which the author is affiliated.