jurisdiction with substantial cost. 14. The Reply to the Preliminary Objection by the Learned Counsel to the Applicant Mr. Alex Ikay Molokwu brought out novel points for consideration, in view of the complex situation of the suit. Learned Counsel opposed the Preliminary Objection and set out the pleas of facts and law dated November 28, 2003 with particular reference to the use of the word "may" in Article 9 (3) of Protocol A/P.1/7/ 91. He submitted that the use of the word "May" in Article 9 (3) was directory and not mandatory. 15. He stated that a situation where a party is instituting action against his Country, the Member State cannot represent the party because the Member State cannot be both the Plaintiff and the defender and that the provision of Article 9 (3) will only apply as it is where the Member State is not his country. 16. In his written submission dated February 12, 2004, Learned Counsel, relying on Article 9 (3) submitted that the Applicant has right of appearance in this Court to litigate the claim. 17. He argued that the issue which borders on jurisdiction is predicated upon the legal issue of Locus Standi as to whether the Plaintiff has a Locus Standi to maintain this action. 18. He argued that the issue of Article 9 (3) of the Protocol calls for the interpretation of the word "may" as to determine whether the peculiar case of the Applicant is outside the ambit of the provision or open to interpretation in favour of the Respondent. He referred to the canons of interpretation and the case of R v. Banbury (inhabitants) 1834 lA & E 136 at 142 wherein Parke J ruled: "The rule of construction is "to intend the Legislature to have meant what they actually expressed." 19. According to Lord Green M.R. There is one rule of construction for statutes and other documents; it is that you must not imply anything in them which is inconsistent with the words expressly used. He further referred to Re A Debtor N° 335 of 1947, 1948 2 All ER 533 at 536. 20. On the meaning of the word 'May', Learned Counsel submitted that "May" always mean permissive or enabling expression and referred toBakare v. The Attorney General of the Federation & 2 ORS (1990) 5 NWLR (PART 152) page 516 at 545 paragraphs E-G held that: "Although the word may always means 'May' it is a permissive or enabling expression... Also as pointed out in Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd Edition Volume 433 the use of the word 'may' prima facie conveys that the authority which has the power to do such act has an option either to do it or not to do it" 21. He submitted that the interpretation adopted by the Respondent would amount to shutting out the Applicant with legitimate claim from pursuing his entitlement before a Court. He submitted that this is the appropriate Court as a Community citizen. 22. On the issue of jurisdiction, he submitted that jurisdiction is usually a creation of statute. He urged the Court to hold that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 23. On the issue of whether only Member States may maintain an action before the Court, Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Article 9(3) of the Protocol did not specify that only Member States have access to the Court and referred us to Article 34 × 1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court. 2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with its Rules, may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it, and shall receive such information presented by such organizations on their own initiative. 3. Whenever the construction of the constituent instrument of a public international organization or of an international convention adopted thereunder is in question in a case before the Court, the Registrar shall so notify the public international organization concerned and shall communicate to it copies of all the written proceedings. of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which specified that only Member States have access to the Court. 24. He urged the Court to hold that since Article 9 (3) of the Protocol did not specify clearly as stated in Article 34, the framers of Article 9 of the Protocol intended to exclude such inclusion of the words in Article 9(3) of the Protocol. 25. On the application of Article 9 (1) of the Protocol regarding ensuring the observance of law and of the principles of equity in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Treaty, Learned Counsel brought into focus that this Court possessed an inherent jurisdiction to take such action as may be required in order to ensure settlement of the matters in dispute. 3