How then are the origins, political, intellectual and cultural, of the ACHPR to be explained? The starting point has to be an appreciation that the ACHPR process was a project of the OAU AHSG alone and therefore, in that it was at all times subject to the absolute discretion of African political leaders, it cannot simply be explained as a manifestation of an African desire to emulate the UDHR or to establish a regional human rights regime – either on the part of African leaders or African public opinion. On the contrary, African political leaders were consistently disdainful of the UDHR and, therefore, both pre- and post-independence, ignored, dismissed or limited the application of the UDHR in relation to Africa. This antipathy would have to be overcome or accommodated if the ACHPR were to have any chance of being adopted by the OAU AHSG.

There can be no doubt that appeals by the African colonial territories to the UDHR or to human rights as the basis of their right to independence, as in the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, were conspicuous by their absence. In the case of the French colonial territories, this absence ought perhaps to be regarded as possibly not so curious as, Algeria and, pre-dating the UDHR, Madagascar in 1947 apart, there was not so much of a struggle for independence as a step-by-step creeping negotiation over many years with deferential African leaders invariably anxious to maintain a mutually beneficial close relationship with France and alive to the consequences were they to rock the boat unduly. In such circumstances, there was little scope or need for appeals to the UDHR. However, even in the North African protectorates and the British colonial territories, where by the early 1950s independence was being pressed with far greater urgency, demands were rarely expressed in terms of the UDHR or human rights. If at all, the preferred references were the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter. As for the Portuguese colonial territories, their prolonged and violent struggle for independence served only to alienate them from the UDHR which they perceived as hypocritical, self-serving and racist, and inappropriate for the new revolutionary society they sought to create.