{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01304631441617743, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.286885245901639, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International Courts as Coordination Devices for Opposition Parties

This chapter examines how opposition political parties have sought to overcome repressive practices in four of the six East African Community Member States: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and South Sudan. Opposition political parties and politicians from these countries have prodded the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to use a treaty remedy for violations of rules governing the elections of members to the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) in each of these countries. They have done so by pursuing a judicial remedy in the EACJ to resolve a coordination problem that opposition parties face when their opportunity to participate in an above-board election is compromised. These cases show how challenging the electoral malpractices of dominant parties in the EACJ facilitate opposition mobilization in ways that are not always possible, or even anticipated, in their home country. The EACJ has facilitated this coordination by consistently affirming that above-board elections are the only permissible mode of electing members of the EALA. This has helped opposition political parties to know when they have a factual basis with a likelihood of success so they could bring cases against dominant political parties in the EACJ. By contrast, the lack of cases from Burundi and Rwanda shows that the clamp down on organizational rights in these countries have made it impossible for opposition parties and politicians to bring election cases before the EACJ.