Opinion; Subjects: BENIN, TOGO, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-09869 (E) 010926 020926
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 105th session, 23 March–1 April 2026
Opinion No. 6/2026 concerning Steve Zountinde Amoussou (Benin and
Togo)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 8 December 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Governments of Benin and Togo a communication concerning Steve
Zountinde Amoussou. The Government of Benin replied on 6 February 2026. The
Government of Togo has not replied to the communication. Both States are Parties to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
General Assembly
Distr.: General
14 July 2026
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
2
GE.26-09869
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Steve Zountinde Amoussou, born on 25 February 1985, is a Beninese journalist and
activist who has his habitual place of residence in Lomé, Togo.
5.
According to the source, Mr. Amoussou’s activism made him a target of the
Government of Benin, which suspects him of being the online columnist known by the
pseudonym “Brother Hounvi”, who is critical of how Benin is governed and the lack of
democracy and abuses of power in the country. In 2017, after learning that he might be
arrested by the Government, Mr. Amoussou fled to Togo.
(i)
Abduction
6.
The night between 12 and 13 August 2024, Mr. Amoussou was abducted in Lomé by
a secret civilian militia of the Government of Benin. He was shown no arrest warrant at the
time of his abduction or given any reason for it. He was simply accosted on the street and
thrown roughly into a vehicle, in which he was then violently beaten, tortured and strangled
to the point of losing consciousness. His attackers mocked him and ridiculed his commitment
to democracy. They also openly talked about killing him and disposing of his body, until one
of them suggested that he be taken to Benin.
7.
Mr. Amoussou was thus taken clandestinely back to Benin, where his abductors
handed him over to a police officer, who then turned him over to the Central Office for the
Suppression of Cybercrime.
8.
The source alleges that Mr. Amoussou’s abduction had been arranged by the
Government of Benin under the supervision of the Director General of the National Agency
for Security and Information Systems of Benin. Three of the alleged abductors, including the
Director General of the Agency, have been formally identified. Two of their accomplices
have been arrested, tried and convicted in Togo, where they are now in prison.
9.
As soon as Mr. Amoussou arrived in Benin, he was questioned without a lawyer
present. He was detained without anyone knowing where he was and was prevented from
contacting anyone. People who witnessed his abduction quickly raised the alarm online, and
his family searched for him at all police agencies and police stations before finding him at
the Central Office for the Suppression of Cybercrime. Shortly thereafter, lawyers affiliated
with certain opposition political parties came together to defend him. After a public reaction,
Mr. Amoussou was finally allowed to speak with his lawyers the evening of 13 August 2024,
in the presence of police officers tasked with listening to their conversation. That same
evening, he was transferred to the Economic and Financial Brigade.
10.
On 20 August 2024, Mr. Amoussou was brought, without legal assistance, before the
special prosecutor of the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and Terrorism. The
prosecutor informed him that he was charged with harassment through electronic
communications, incitement to rebellion and defamation by electronic means under
articles 550, 553 and 558 of Act No. 2017-20 of 20 April 2018 on the Digital Code of the
Republic of Benin. Mr. Amoussou recounted the circumstances of his abduction to the
prosecutor, who replied, “It was a police officer who turned you over to the Central Office
for the Suppression of Cybercrime, and that is enough for me”. During that appearance, the
prosecutor’s sole priority was to force Mr. Amoussou to admit that he was “Hounvi”, which
he denied. His lawyers were informed of this appearance later, via social media.
11.
On 20 August 2024, Mr. Amoussou was transferred to the civilian prison in
Akpro‑Missérété and then, the following day, to the prison in Ouidah, without his family or
lawyers being informed or allowed to see him. His family learned of his transfer to Ouidah
from an anonymous phone call. Mr. Amoussou was sent back to the civilian prison in
Akpro-Missérété a few days later.
12.
In a statement released on 20 August 2024, the President of the Bar Association of
Benin described Mr. Amoussou’s arrest and expressed his concerns about the lack of
compliance with the rules governing criminal prosecution and the flagrant violation of the
laws in force.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
3
13.
On 22 August 2024, a group of Togolese civil society organizations stated that, in the
light of the alleged facts, the complicity or involvement of Togo in the abduction appeared
highly likely; otherwise, the act could have been seen as a diplomatic affront.
14.
As he had been tortured and physically assaulted during his abduction, Mr. Amoussou
asked to be treated, but his request was denied, as the prosecutor did not want evidence of
the physical abuse to be documented. The source claims that all the doctors contacted by
Mr. Amoussou’s family refused to treat him for fear of reprisals by the authorities.
(ii)
Trial of the alleged abductors
15.
Isolated and unable to communicate with his lawyers since 20 August 2024,
Mr. Amoussou was taken to court by ambulance in the early morning of 3 September 2024,
without knowing why, on the orders of the special prosecutor of the Court for the Prevention
of Financial Offences and Terrorism.
16.
The special prosecutor, who had initiated the criminal proceedings against
Mr. Amoussou, had filed a complaint on Mr. Amoussou’s behalf, without his knowledge,
against his abductors, while at the same time disregarding the evidence gathered against them
by the Government of Togo. The trial of the three alleged abductors, including the Director
General of the National Agency for Security and Information Systems, was held without
Mr. Amoussou’s agreement and without his family or lawyers being informed. The
defendants were represented by four lawyers.
17.
According to the source, some of Mr. Amoussou’s lawyers were not informed of the
trial under way until after Mr. Amoussou had been brought to court. The source states that
the purpose of the trial was to exonerate the Director General of the National Agency for
Security and Information Systems, the only tangible link between the crimes committed in
Togo and the Government of Benin, and to prevent the Government of Togo from arresting
the abductors.
18.
During the trial, one of the defendants stated that he had acted on the orders of a
Beninese businessman living abroad who claimed that Mr. Amoussou had stolen 10 million
CFA francs from him. When questioned about the identities of their accomplices, the
defendants declined to name them, and the prosecutor, despite being tasked with defending
Mr. Amoussou’s interests as the victim, took no steps to obtain the information or to summon
the accomplices to appear.
19.
Furthermore, the prosecutor did not attempt to establish the veracity of the transaction
between the defendants and the alleged businessman who had ordered the abduction or even
the existence of that individual, to locate the vehicle used in the kidnapping or to determine
the identity of the police officer to whom Mr. Amoussou had been handed over after the
abduction. The court, nevertheless, quickly cleared the Director General of the National
Agency for Security and Information Systems of any involvement and placed him under
protection. The other two defendants were sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, 12 of
which were immediately enforceable, and ordered to pay Mr. Amoussou 5 million
CFA francs; however, instead of being imprisoned, they were taken to stay in a villa and were
being protected by members of the Beninese armed forces.
20.
The appeal filed by Mr. Amoussou’s lawyers has not yet been heard.
(iii)
Trial of Mr. Amoussou
21.
Mr. Amoussou’s trial before the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and
Terrorism began on 7 October 2024. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Amoussou’s lawyers were
neither allowed to speak with their client nor given access to the various records from the
investigation. His family was informed that they would need to obtain a special pass in order
to attend the trial.
22.
During the hearing, Mr. Amoussou’s lawyers requested access to the case file so that
they could prepare his defence. The prosecutor supported the request, which was intended to
safeguard due process. They were therefore given access to the case file, and the trial was
postponed until 18 November 2024. The file contained no evidence or documents to support
the charges.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
4
GE.26-09869
23.
According to the source, when two of Mr. Amoussou’s lawyers attempted to meet
with him the week before the 18 November hearing, they were told that, under a new rule,
only one lawyer could meet with him. The next day, only one of the lawyers arrived, but he
was told that no meeting was allowed with his client. It was not until the morning of the
hearing that Mr. Amoussou was able to speak, for around 20 minutes, with his lawyers.
24.
During the hearing, the defence moved to have the proceedings dismissed, citing the
unconstitutionality of the trial against Mr. Amoussou, given his abduction, the due process
violations, including his questioning without his lawyers present, and the physical and
psychological ill-treatment to which he had been subjected. His release was also requested.
25.
On 9 December 2024, even though his case was on the court calendar, Mr. Amoussou
was not taken out of the prison because the prison authorities had not received the necessary
order to bring him to court. He was brought to the hearing only after his lawyers intervened.
Following the denial by the court of the motion to have the proceedings dismissed and of the
request for Mr. Amoussou’s release, the defence turned to the Constitutional Court.
26.
At the hearing on 27 January 2025, the prosecutor claimed that Mr. Amoussou had,
under the pseudonym “Hounvi”, accused the Beninese army of having fired live ammunition
at civilians. The defence requested the relevant documents from the case file and the evidence
and asked to know who had made the complaint. The defence’s requests were all disregarded,
and the trial was postponed until 10 March 2025.
27.
On 20 February 2025, the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction in the case.
28.
On 10 March 2025, the hearing before the Court for the Prevention of Financial
Offences and Terrorism was suspended approximately an hour after it began, after the
defence requested clarification regarding the identity of the complainant. The lawyers raised
flagrant violations of national and international law. The source notes that, following
Mr. Amoussou’s abduction, a member of his family was illegally detained and forced to state
that Mr. Amoussou was “Hounvi”. The prosecutor submitted the statement, obtained under
duress, as evidence.
29.
On 7 April 2025, the prosecutor demanded that Mr. Amoussou provide proof that he
was not “Hounvi”. The defence pointed out that the burden of proof rested with the prosecutor
and that no credible evidence had been presented.
30.
On 2 June 2025, Mr. Amoussou was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and fined
2 million CFA francs. The defence did not file an appeal for fear that a harsher sentence
would be handed down. The source notes that the appeal filed in the case against the
abductors has never been heard and that, in line with a well-documented trend, victims in
similar cases have had their sentences doubled for exercising their right of appeal. The
prosecutor, however, filed an appeal, without informing the defence, and sought a harsher
sentence.
31.
Mr. Amoussou is being held in solitary confinement at the Akpro-Missérété prison.
He is sometimes deprived of the only hour of walking that he is permitted and is not allowed
to read.
(iv)
Legal analysis
32.
The source asserts that Mr. Amoussou’s abduction and his incommunicado detention
upon his arrival in Benin are contrary to article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and the laws of
Benin, in particular the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 8 of the Constitution. The
source claims that Mr. Amoussou was never informed of the charges against him and that no
well-substantiated investigation could have warranted his arrest, much less his abduction on
the territory of a foreign State.
33.
The source notes the procedural steps required in terms of police cooperation under
the Statute of the African Union Mechanism for Police Cooperation – drafted by the African
Union and applicable between its member States – including the issuance of an international
arrest warrant and the official measures to notify the country of asylum and request its
cooperation to enable extradition to the requesting country, where, in the presence of legal
counsel, the person can be questioned and mount a defence. In the present case, none of the
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
5
legal procedures were followed. In the light of the conversations between Mr. Amoussou’s
abductors, the primary purpose of the abduction had been to kill him. He was beaten, tortured,
humiliated and strangled several times during the trip.
34.
In response to the violation of its territorial integrity and international laws on
cooperation, Togo launched an investigation into the abduction of Mr. Amoussou. The
investigation revealed the involvement of three of the four abductors who are now being
protected by the Government of Benin despite the international warrants for their arrests. At
the trial of his abductors on 3 September 2024, Mr. Amoussou was brought to court in
handcuffs, without a lawyer and without having been informed of the reasons for his
appearance. The defendants were free and under the protection of the Beninese police when
they appeared in court.
35.
The source raises several violations of Mr. Amoussou’s right to a fair trial under
article 14 of the Covenant: while in detention, he was questioned on several occasions
without his lawyers present; during their subsequent consultations, they were listened to and
monitored; and his lawyers were denied access to the case file and evidence on numerous
occasions. Furthermore, according to the source, the lack of any evidence establishing
Mr. Amoussou’s guilt reveals a violation of his right to be presumed innocent. The source
further argues that the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and Terrorism does not
meet the requirements of independence and impartiality under article 14 (1) of the Covenant,
given that it operates under the direct influence of the President of Benin.
36.
The source asserts that Mr. Amoussou – targeted by the Government of Benin because
of his activism and suspected of being the columnist “Hounvi”, a critic of how Benin is
governed and the lack of democracy and abuses of power in the country – was forced to flee
to Togo in 2017. According to the source, the Government of Benin has not, to date,
demonstrated in what way being “Hounvi” constitutes a crime, nor has it proven that
Mr. Amoussou is in fact “Hounvi”. The source maintains that it was because of his
democratic activism that Mr. Amoussou was persecuted and forced into exile, and that he
was abducted, held captive, tortured and arbitrarily detained in Benin.
37.
The source is of the view that, by keeping Mr. Amoussou in detention, the prosecutor
of the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and Terrorism, who had been informed
of the abduction, was complicit in the commission of a crime.
38.
The source argues that, since no warrant was issued for Mr. Amoussou’s arrest and it
has been acknowledged that he was the victim of a crime and brought to Benin against his
will, he should have been released, in Togo, following the trial of his abductors.
(b)
Response from the Government
39.
On 8 December 2025, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Mr. Amoussou to the Governments of Togo and Benin, requesting them to provide detailed
information about him by 6 February 2026 and to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
40.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government of
Togo. On 3 February 2026, the Government of Benin requested an extension in accordance
with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work, which was granted, with a new
deadline of 4 March 2026. On 6 February 2026, the Government of Benin submitted a
response in which it explained that Mr. Amoussou is a Beninese humourist against whom,
on 16 January 2024, a complaint had been made with the Central Office for the Suppression
of Cybercrime regarding a case of fraud involving 10 million CFA francs.
41.
According to the Government, on 13 August 2024, two individuals close to the person
who had filed that complaint took Mr. Amoussou to the Central Office for the Suppression
of Cybercrime to answer for his actions. These individuals have no ties to the Government
or its security forces. The Government explains that it is common for complainants or
creditors to bring debtors or suspects before the authorities in this manner.
42.
There were several social media posts about the abduction of “Brother Hounvi”, a
reference to the pseudonym of a Beninese cyberactivist. The Government claims that he is a
self-proclaimed “fearless opponent” of the President of Benin, that he is well-known on social
media and that he has written defamatory articles slandering various individuals and the
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
6
GE.26-09869
administration of the State. People close to “Brother Hounvi” identified him as
Mr. Amoussou at a press conference. The special prosecutor of the Court for the Prevention
of Financial Offences and Terrorism then ordered that an investigation be opened into
Mr. Amoussou for harassment through electronic communications, the introduction and
dissemination of false information through social media and direct incitement to rebellion
via an electronic communications network.
43.
According to the Government, Mr. Amoussou was assisted, on a continuous basis, by
seven lawyers from the time that he was handed over to the police. No interview record
predates his meeting with his lawyers on 13 August 2024, and none was signed without their
countersignature. Mr. Amoussou showed no signs of physical injury, and his lawyers did not
request any medical care.
44.
On 20 August 2024, the Cybercrime Directorate, formerly the Central Office for the
Suppression of Cybercrime, put two actions against Mr. Amoussou before the special
prosecutor, one for fraud and the other for acts allegedly committed under the pseudonym
“Brother Houvni”.
45.
In connection with the first action, Mr. Amoussou contested the charges against him
and stated that he had been subjected to arbitrary arrest and violence, statements that were
then reported in the press. The prosecutor requested that the investigation continue, including
with an interview of the person who had filed the complaint against Mr. Amoussou. The
prosecutor also ordered that Mr. Amoussou be remanded in custody owing to the needs of
the investigation. Mr. Amoussou, who had complained of pain in his arms and back, received
care from the prison doctor.
46.
Because the Director of the National Centre for Digital Investigations had been
implicated in the abduction of Mr. Amoussou and the Centre had functional ties to the
Cybercrime Directorate, the prosecutor transferred the case from that entity to the Criminal
Investigation Department to ensure the transparency of the proceedings. Following an
investigation, the Director of the Centre was charged with aiding and abetting false arrest and
two other persons were charged with false arrest under articles 22 and 567 of the Criminal
Code.
47.
On 3 September 2024, following a public hearing, the Director was acquitted because
of a lack of evidence demonstrating his involvement, as Mr. Amoussou had himself stated
that he had not seen him among his abductors, unlike the other two persons. The other two
individuals were sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, 12 of which were immediately
enforceable, and ordered to pay Mr. Amoussou 5 million CFA francs. Mr. Amoussou joined
the case as a civil party. His lawyers had access to the judicial case file and could defend him
freely.
48.
In connection with the second action, Mr. Amoussou was charged with harassment
through electronic communications, the introduction and dissemination of false information
through social media and direct incitement to rebellion via an electronic communications
network under articles 550 and 553 of Act No. 2017-20 of 20 April 2018 on the Digital Code.
The trial, which began on 7 October 2024, was postponed several times, including at the
request of the defence. The defence approached the Constitutional Court on 18 December
2024, seeking a ruling that Mr. Amoussou’s arrest and pretrial detention were
unconstitutional and arbitrary. The Constitutional Court ruled that the petition was moot, as
there was already a judicial decision on the circumstances of the arrest.
49.
After amending the charges, the trial chamber of the Court for the Prevention of
Financial Offences and Terrorism sentenced Mr. Amoussou to 24 months’ imprisonment and
a fine of 2 million CFA francs. The appellate court upheld the conviction, although on the
basis of the original charges. Since he did not file an appeal, Mr. Amoussou will serve his
sentence under the same conditions as other convicted persons and in accordance with the
applicable laws.
50.
The Government asserts that the criminal investigation police did not carry out any
arrest or abduction on the territory of a foreign State and that Mr. Amoussou’s abductors,
civilians acting outside of any legal framework, were arrested, tried and convicted. It notes
that, in accordance with the principle of male captus, bene detentus, the irregularity of an
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
7
arrest cannot, by itself, invalidate the subsequent criminal proceedings if those proceedings
comply with legal requirements and fair trial guarantees. Mr. Amoussou received effective
assistance from his lawyers throughout the proceedings, and all his due process rights were
scrupulously observed, as evidenced by the record of the first interview and his appearance
before the prosecutor, as well as the court records and the various measures taken by the
defence.
51.
The Government notes that the lawfulness of the proceedings against Mr. Amoussou
was confirmed by the trial chamber, the appellate court and the Constitutional Court, and that
the defence had the opportunity to challenge the forensic analysis report from the National
Centre for Digital Investigations.
52.
The Government argues that the prosecution did not target Mr. Amoussou and that it
identified him as “Brother Hounvi” only when he was handed over to the police and
following the statement made by some of his relatives and the confirmation from one of his
lawyers. Mr. Amoussou did not dispute his family member’s statement in this regard. The
Government notes that, since Mr. Amoussou’s arrest, the columns by “Brother Hounvi” have
ceased to appear on all social media. According to the Government, the mere prosecution of
a politically active person, in the absence of evidence of differential treatment or of the
selective use or misuse of the justice system, is not sufficient for a conclusion that there has
been discrimination.
53.
Furthermore, the Government explains that the Court for the Prevention of Financial
Offences and Terrorism is a special court whose judges are appointed in accordance with the
principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers and before which fair trial
guarantees are fully applicable. It asserts that the reforms instituted under Acts No. 2020-07
of 17 February 2020 and No. 2021-11 of 20 December 2021 address the source’s complaints
regarding the lack of independence of the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and
Terrorism and that the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has since reassessed its
position on the matter.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
54.
On 20 February 2026, the source submitted additional comments in which it noted
that the Government provided no evidence regarding the complaint filed against
Mr. Amoussou. The source maintains that the existence of an investigation does not authorize
deprivation of liberty outside the framework of the law and does not make the safeguards
provided for in article 9 of the Covenant inapplicable.
55.
The source further notes that the Government has produced no documents relating to
any request for extradition, mutual legal assistance or police or judicial cooperation with the
Togolese authorities, nor any warrant or judicial decision authorizing an arrest in Togo, any
record of an arrest on Togolese territory or any evidence that would provide an official trace
of the cross-border handover. The source deems the argument of a domestic “practice”
whereby complainants bring suspects before the authorities to be legally ineffective.
56.
Finally, the source notes that the Government provided no documents, including
exhibits or procedural records, demonstrating that Mr. Amoussou’s detention had been
registered, that there had been judicial control, that he had been notified of the charges and
had had access to his lawyers or that he had been guilty.
2.
Discussion
57.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government of Benin for their
submissions. In the absence of a response from the Government of Togo, the Working Group
has decided to render the present opinion on the basis of the information provided by the
source, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
58.
In determining whether Mr. Amoussou’s detention is arbitrary, the Working Group
has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If
the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
8
GE.26-09869
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.2 Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations. In
the present case, the Government of Togo has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible
allegations made by the source.
(a)
Allegations against Togo
59.
The source claims that, the night between 12 and 13 August 2024, Mr. Amoussou was
abducted in Lomé, Togo, by a secret civilian militia of the Government of Benin that forcibly
transported him across the border into Benin, outside of any legal proceedings, and handed
him over to the Beninese police. On 22 August 2024, Togolese civil society organizations
issued a press release stating that, in the light of the alleged facts, the complicity or
involvement of the Togolese authorities appeared highly likely; otherwise, the act could have
been seen as a diplomatic affront. The source also notes that, following Mr. Amoussou’s
abduction, the Togolese authorities launched an investigation and prosecuted and convicted
two accomplices. Arrest warrants were issued for Mr. Amoussou’s abductors, who had fled
to Benin.
60.
The Working Group regrets that it has not received a response from the Government
of Togo. However, it does not, in its view, have sufficient information to reach a conclusion
as to the involvement of Togo in Mr. Amoussou’s abduction or its responsibility for the
violation of his rights.
(b)
Allegations against Benin
(i)
Category I
61.
The source asserts that Mr. Amoussou’s detention in Benin is arbitrary, given the lack
of a legal basis for his initial arrest and transfer.
62.
The Government of Benin argues that, according to the principle of male captus, bene
detentus, the irregularity of the circumstances of Mr. Amoussou’s arrest does not
automatically vitiate the subsequent criminal proceedings if the basic guarantees of due
process are observed in those proceedings. The Working Group cannot accept this argument
in the present context. While the principle may, in certain national legal systems, prevent the
dismissal of charges on purely procedural grounds, it does not relieve a State of its
responsibility under international human rights law when the detention stems from a violation
of the right to liberty. The Working Group has consistently maintained that forced cross-
border transfers that do not comply with the fundamental requirements of due process do not
constitute a legal basis for subsequent detention under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Once
Mr. Amoussou was handed over to the Beninese authorities, the State assumed full and direct
responsibility for his person and for the protection of his rights.
63.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Amoussou was allegedly transferred from Lomé,
Togo, to Benin without any request for extradition, mutual legal assistance or police
cooperation, nor any judicial authorization or official documentation from border authorities.
The Government of Benin does not dispute these allegations and has not produced any of
these documents. The prosecutor’s statement that “[i]t was a police officer who turned you
over to the Central Office for the Suppression of Cybercrime, and that is enough for me”
reflects an approach that is in direct contradiction to the requirements of article 9 (1) of the
Covenant. Consequently, the Working Group considers that Mr. Amoussou’s detention in
Benin lacked a legal basis from the outset.
64.
Furthermore, the Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that
Mr. Amoussou was shown no arrest warrant, that he was not informed of any reason for his
detention and that he was not brought before any judicial authority. On 20 August 2024, he
was brought before the special prosecutor of the Court for the Prevention of Financial
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
9
Offences and Terrorism, who informed him for the first time of the charges against him.
Mr. Amoussou appeared before a judicial authority for the first time on 3 September 2024,
at the trial of his abductors.
65.
The Working Group recalls that, under article 9 (2) of the Covenant, anyone who is
arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and be
promptly informed of any charges against him or her. The Government has provided no
evidence to show that Mr. Amoussou had been informed of the reasons for his arrest at the
time of the arrest. He was allegedly not informed of the charges against him until he appeared
before the prosecutor on 20 August, seven days later, in violation of article 9 (2).
66.
Under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, any person arrested or detained on a criminal
charge must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise
judicial power. The Human Rights Committee has pointed out that a prosecutor cannot be
considered an officer exercising judicial power under article 9, since the requirement for
judicial control implies oversight that is independent of the executive branch. 3 The
Committee further noted that a period of 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the
requirement that a detained person be brought promptly before a judge and that any longer
delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified by the circumstances.4
67.
In the present case, Mr. Amoussou was not brought before an independent judicial
authority during the entire initial period of his detention. His appearance before the
prosecutor on 20 August 2024 cannot satisfy the requirement, and his appearance before the
Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and Terrorism on 3 September 2024 took
place within the framework of separate proceedings that Mr. Amoussou had joined as a civil
party, and not of the criminal proceedings against him. In the absence of an explanation from
the Government to justify the absence of prompt judicial control, the Working Group
concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
68.
The source adds that for several hours after Mr. Amoussou’s transfer to the Central
Office for the Suppression of Cybercrime on 13 August 2024, his family and lawyers did not
know where he was and were forced to search for him at various police stations before they
found him at the Central Office for the Suppression of Cybercrime that same day. During the
initial phase of his detention, Mr. Amoussou was allegedly held without any contact with the
outside world and without his detention being officially acknowledged. In its response, the
Government merely states that Mr. Amoussou was assisted, on a continuous basis, by seven
lawyers from the time that he was taken into police custody, without providing any
documents to substantiate this claim.
69.
The Working Group recalls that a refusal by authorities to acknowledge a person’s
deprivation of liberty or their concealment of a person’s fate or whereabouts has no valid
legal basis under any circumstances and constitutes an enforced disappearance, prohibited by
international law. Enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of
arbitrary detention5 and places an individual outside the protection of the law, in violation of
article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the Covenant. The
seriousness of such a violation is not mitigated by its duration; it is aggravated by the specific
circumstances in which it occurs. The source makes credible allegations that severe physical
violence was inflicted on Mr. Amoussou while he was abducted and transported. His
abductors allegedly considered killing him and disposing of his body before they decided to
hand him over to the Beninese authorities. The Government does not refute these allegations
and provides no evidence indicating that Mr. Amoussou’s family was informed of his
detention as soon as he was taken into police custody. The Working Group is of the view that
the applicable procedural safeguards were not observed from the moment that Mr. Amoussou
was transferred to the authorities.
70.
The Working Group also notes that Mr. Amoussou sought to challenge the lawfulness
of his detention before the Constitutional Court of Benin, which held that the circumstances
of his arrest had already been examined during the trial of his abductors. The Working Group
3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.
4 Ibid., para. 33.
5 See opinions No. 5/2020, No. 6/2020, No. 11/2020 and No. 13/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
10
GE.26-09869
is of the view that the prosecution and, in part, conviction of Mr. Amoussou’s abductors
cannot be considered effective judicial control of the lawfulness of Mr. Amoussou’s
detention under article 9 (4) of the Covenant, as the trial of the abductors dealt with their
criminal responsibility for his abduction.
71.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Amoussou’s detention in Benin
does not meet the requirements of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 9 of the Covenant and is thus arbitrary under category I.
(ii)
Category II
72.
The source argues that Mr. Amoussou was detained and prosecuted solely because of
political comments critical of the Government attributed to “Brother Hounvi”. The source
notes that Mr. Amoussou is a journalist whose activism made him a target of the Government
of Benin, which suspected him of being “Brother Hounvi”, and that Mr. Amoussou fled
Benin in 2017 after learning that he was at risk of being arrested. During Mr. Amoussou’s
trial, the prosecutor allegedly claimed that he had, under the pseudonym “Brother Hounvi”,
accused the Beninese armed forces of having fired live ammunition at civilians. According
to the source, the statement attributed to “Brother Hounvi” falls within the scope of freedom
of political expression and no credible evidence was presented to show that the statement
could legitimately be subject to restrictions or that Mr. Amoussou was “Brother Hounvi”.
The Government asserts that it did not target Mr. Amoussou and that it identified him as
“Brother Hounvi” when he was handed over to the police and following the statement made
by some of his relatives.
73.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Amoussou was convicted by the appellate division
of the Court for the Prevention of Financial Offences and Terrorism on 15 December 2025
for harassment through electronic communications, incitement to rebellion and defamation
by electronic means. The three charges were based solely on content attributed to the
anonymous political commentator using the pseudonym “Brother Hounvi” and known for his
criticism of the Government. The Government itself describes “Brother Hounvi” as a
self-proclaimed “fearless opponent” of the President of Benin who posts articles critical of
how Benin is governed.
74.
Article 19 of the Covenant guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which
includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, through
any media. This right extends to political criticism, comments about government institutions
and the expression of opinions that offend, shock or challenge the authorities. The Human
Rights Committee has affirmed that States must refrain from imposing restrictions on
discussions of government policies, political debate, reporting on government activities and
corruption in government, or expression of opinion and dissent. 6 In accordance with
article 19 (3), any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be provided for by
law and be necessary and proportionate.
75.
The Working Group notes that, in his report on his visit to Benin in 2024, the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism expressed concern that certain provisions of the Digital Code could
“unjustifiably interfere with the rights of human rights defenders, political activists and
journalists” and called on the Government to review those provisions.7 The same concerns
were raised during the most recent periodic review of Benin by the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights8 and in the context of the 2023 universal periodic review.9 The
Working Group emphasizes that, because of the requirement under article 19 (3) that any
restriction be provided for by law, laws must be formulated “with sufficient precision to
enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly”.10
6 Human Rights Committee, resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p).
7 A/HRC/58/47/Add.1, para. 77.
8 E/C.12/BEN/CO/3, paras. 9 and 10.
9 A/HRC/53/10, para. 136.99.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
11
76.
The Working Group notes that the content attributed to “Brother Hounvi” included
political comments, allegations of corruption and criticism of the President. The Government
has not demonstrated how these statements could legitimately be subject to restriction under
article 19 (3) of the Covenant, nor how they met the threshold of incitement to violence under
article 20 of the Covenant.
77.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Amoussou’s
detention is contrary to the requirements of article 19 (3) of the Covenant and is therefore
arbitrary under category II.
(iii)
Category III
78.
Given its finding that the detention of Mr. Amoussou is arbitrary under category II,
the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. However,
Mr. Amoussou was tried and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 2 million
CFA francs on 2 June 2025, a sentence upheld by the appellate court on 15 December 2025.
The Working Group will therefore proceed to examine the allegations of violations of the
right to a fair trial.
79.
According to the source, Mr. Amoussou’s detention is arbitrary under category III
owing to serious, cumulative violations of his right to a fair trial: Mr. Amoussou was
questioned without a lawyer present; his meetings with his lawyers were monitored by the
police, in violation of legal professional privilege; and his access to his lawyers was
systematically obstructed in the days before the hearing of 18 November 2024, which left
him only 20 minutes to speak with them the very morning of the hearing. The source further
asserts that the defence was never given access to the evidence supporting the charges, and
that no independent technical evidence linking Mr. Amoussou to “Brother Hounvi” was put
forward. The source also contends that the prosecutor demanded that Mr. Amoussou prove
that he was not “Brother Hounvi”, which constitutes an impermissible reversal of the burden
of proof and a violation of the presumption of innocence. Finally, the source expresses
concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the Court for the Prevention of
Financial Offences and Terrorism.
80.
The Working Group recalls that article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant guarantees the right
of all persons charged with a criminal offence to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. The
right to communicate with counsel applies from the moment of deprivation of liberty and
across all settings of detention, and legal assistance must be available throughout the
proceedings and, in the context of the criminal justice setting, prior to questioning by the
authorities.11 Principles 5 and 7 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that
any person deprived of liberty must be informed of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of
their own choice and must have access to their lawyer without delay.
81.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that, on 13 August 2024,
during the initial phase of his detention, Mr. Amoussou was questioned without a lawyer. In
response, the Government cites two official records dated 16 and 20 August 2024 and asserts
that they demonstrate the presence of a lawyer. However, the Government does not refute
the allegations that no lawyer was present when Mr. Amoussou arrived at the Central Office
for the Suppression of Cybercrime or was questioned on 13 August 2024. Consequently, the
Working Group concludes that Mr. Amoussou’s lack of access to legal assistance from the
outset of his deprivation of liberty and during his first interview is contrary to
article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
82.
Furthermore, the Government has not refuted the allegations that Mr. Amoussou’s
meetings with his lawyers were monitored by the police. Respect for the confidentiality of
communications between lawyers and their clients is a fundamental component of the right
to a fair trial. As highlighted by the Human Rights Committee, lawyers should be able to
meet with their clients and communicate with them in conditions that fully respect the
confidentiality of their communications.12 Principle 8 of the Basic Principles on the Role of
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; and A/HRC/45/16, para. 51.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
12
GE.26-09869
Lawyers provides, in part, that all detained persons are entitled to have the time and facilities
necessary to consult and communicate with their lawyer in full confidentiality. The Working
Group thus concludes that there has been a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
83.
The Working Group also notes that, according to the source, Mr. Amoussou’s access
to his lawyers was significantly restricted the week before the hearing of 18 November 2024.
The Government’s general assertion that Mr. Amoussou had constant access to legal
assistance is not supported by visit logs or any other documentation. The Working Group
considers that a meeting with his lawyers of only 20 minutes on the very morning of the
hearing was clearly insufficient for Mr. Amoussou to be able to prepare for a hearing on the
merits after months of obstacles. The Working Group therefore concludes that there has been
an additional violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
84.
Regarding the allegations that the prosecutor demanded that Mr. Amoussou provide
proof that he was not “Brother Hounvi”, the Human Rights Committee has emphasized that
the burden of proving a charge, beyond reasonable doubt, rests with the prosecution and that
public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.13 Although it
is not for the Working Group to assess whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient,
it notes with concern that the key statement identifying Mr. Amoussou as “Brother Hounvi”
was allegedly obtained from a member of his family following an unlawful detention and the
use of coercion. These circumstances raise concerns, to which the Government has not
responded, as to whether the prosecution was based on grounds consistent with the right to
be presumed innocent provided for in article 14 (2) of the Covenant and article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
85.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s allegations that the review of the case
file on 7 October 2024 revealed that it contained no evidence, documents or factual
information to support the charges and that, at the hearing on 27 January 2025, a new request
for the evidence was denied. The Government does not specifically address the substance of
these allegations; its assertion that lawyers actively participated in the proceedings does not
establish that evidence was duly disclosed as required under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
86.
With regard to the independence and impartiality of the Court for the Prevention of
Financial Offences and Terrorism, the Working Group takes note of the Government’s
observations. It recalls, however, that it has already examined the issue of the Court’s
structural independence in its opinion No. 21/2024. The Working Group had noted that,
according to the source’s uncontested allegations, the Court is a court of limited jurisdiction
that is directly attached to the executive branch and the Supreme Council of Justice of Benin,
which is itself under the authority and direct control of the President of the Republic, and that
the first people to be indicted by the Court were political opponents. The Working Group had
been of the view that the person in question had been denied his right to be heard by an
impartial and independent tribunal, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 14 These
concerns are just as relevant in the present case. In addition, the Working Group is concerned
about the dual role of the special prosecutor in this case, since he had initiated the criminal
proceedings against Mr. Amoussou but was also, in theory, representing his interests as a
civil party in the trial of the abductors, while at the same time allegedly refusing to look for
evidence against their accomplices. This structural arrangement raises serious questions
about the neutrality of the proceedings, to which the Government has not provided an
adequate response. The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Amoussou was not tried
by an independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
87.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group is of the view that the violations of
Mr. Amoussou’s right to a fair trial, as provided for in article 14 of the Covenant and articles
10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are of such gravity as to render his
deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
13 Ibid., para. 30.
14 Opinion No. 21/2024, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
13
(iv)
Category V
88.
Although the source did not expressly make any allegations under category V, when
a detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong
presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds
of discrimination on the basis of political or other views. The Working Group will examine
ex officio the information relating to category V.
89.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Amoussou allegedly fled Benin in 2017 precisely
because he feared being arrested there on the basis of his political activism. The charges
against him are all related to political comments critical of the Government of President
Talon. In its response, the Government itself acknowledges that “Brother Hounvi” was
well-known on social media for his articles critical of the Government. During the trial, the
prosecutor allegedly claimed that Mr. Amoussou had, under the pseudonym “Brother
Hounvi”, accused the Beninese armed forces of having fired live ammunition at civilians.
90.
The Working Group underscores the broader context highlighted by United Nations
mechanisms: the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has expressed his concerns regarding the
use of provisions of the Digital Code against human rights defenders, political activists and
journalists;15 and similar concerns have been raised by the Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights 16 and in the context of the 2023 universal periodic review. 17 The
prosecution of Mr. Amoussou seems emblematic of the growing criminalization of freedom
of expression and digital rights in Benin. The Working Group notes that a similar pattern was
observed in the case of a Beninese journalist who was also arrested abroad and transferred to
Benin for incitement to rebellion and harassment through electronic communications, a case
that was brought to the Government’s attention by several Human Rights Council special
procedure mandate holders.18
91.
The Government asserts that the mere prosecution of a politically active person is not
sufficient to establish the existence of discrimination and that the source has not produced
evidence demonstrating differential treatment of persons in similar situations. However, the
Working Group is of the view that the existence of a more widespread practice of targeting
persons critical of the Government through the use of the Digital Code, the unfounded nature
of the charges against Mr. Amoussou, as established under category II, and the unlawful
cross-border operation carried out to bring him before the Beninese courts together constitute
a basis for inferring a discriminatory intent that has not been sufficiently refuted by the
Government. The Working Group therefore concludes that the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Amoussou is arbitrary under category V in that it constitutes a violation of international
law on the grounds of discrimination based on political opinion, in violation of articles 2 and
7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant.
(v)
Concluding remarks
92.
The Working Group expresses serious concern regarding the allegations, uncontested
by the Government, that a member of Mr. Amoussou’s family was unlawfully detained and
forced to make a statement identifying Mr. Amoussou as “Brother Hounvi”. This statement,
obtained under duress, was allegedly used as evidence at the trial. If confirmed, this
information would reveal a serious violation of the right of a third party and further
underscore the widespread nature of the violations of procedural guarantees in this case.
93.
Furthermore, Mr. Amoussou was allegedly denied adequate medical care following
his transfer to the Beninese authorities, even though he had sustained physical injuries during
the abduction. According to the source, he was refused access to medical care because the
prosecutor wanted to prevent evidence of the physical violence from being documented and
the doctors contacted by the family refused to treat him for fear of reprisals. Mr. Amoussou
is also alleged to be in solitary confinement. In its response, the Government states that
15 A/HRC/58/47/Add.1, para. 77.
16 E/C.12/BEN/CO/3, paras. 9 and 10.
17 A/HRC/53/10, para. 136.99.
18 AL BEN 1/2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
14
GE.26-09869
Mr. Amoussou was examined by a doctor after complaining of pain in his arms and back and
that he is being held in conditions comparable to those of other detainees, in accordance with
applicable law. However, it provides no additional information or evidence. The Working
Group reminds the Government of Benin of its obligations under article 10 of the Covenant
and rules 1, 24, 25, 27 and 43 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which require that all persons deprived
of their liberty be treated with humanity and with respect for their dignity, including by
ensuring timely access to adequate medical care, and prohibit prolonged solitary
confinement. Timely and regular access to independent medical personnel and lawyers
constitutes an essential safeguard, both against arbitrary detention, torture and other
ill-treatment, and for the preparation of an effective defence.
94.
Finally, the Working Group urges the Government of Benin to review the provisions
of the Digital Code, in particular articles 550, 553 and 558, in the light of the concerns
expressed above, in order to ensure that the provisions are fully consistent with international
law.
3.
Disposition
95.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion
regarding Benin:
The deprivation of liberty of Steve Zountinde Amoussou, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2, 9, 14, 16, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
96.
The Working Group requests the Government of Benin to take the steps necessary to
remedy the situation of Mr. Amoussou without delay and bring it into conformity with the
relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Covenant.
97.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of Benin to release Mr. Amoussou
immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in
accordance with international law.
98.
The Working Group urges the Government of Benin to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Amoussou and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of his rights.
99.
The Working Group requests the Government of Benin to disseminate the present
opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
100.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government of Benin to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Amoussou has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Amoussou;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Amoussou’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Benin with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
101.
The Government of Benin is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties
it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/6
GE.26-09869
15
and whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the
Working Group.
102.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government of Benin to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
103.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.19
[Adopted on 24 March 2026]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.