Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 10. On 14 February and subsequently on 30 May 2011, the Complainant lodged two motions before the Supreme Court principally seeking, respectively: (a) an order directing the re-opening of the criminal case lodged against him before the Intermediate Court in 2001 for which he was convicted; and (b) an order directing the re-opening of the disciplinary proceedings lodged against him in 2007 for which he was found guilty and disbarred. The applications were largely based on yet further new evidence and revelations that had come to light in the intervening period, which he believed were exculpatory quoad the criminal conviction and in turn the basis of his disbarment. 11. For purposes of prosecuting the first motion, the Complainant sought leave to appear in person. The Complainant also objected to the then Chief Justice (CJ) and the Senior Puisne Judge (SPJ) forming part of the bench that was empanelled to hear his motion in view of litigation he had instituted against them in which he made damning allegations about their conduct. His objections regarding constitution of the bench were dismissed. 12. On 22 February 2011 when the matter was called for hearing, the Complainant realized that even the bench was unusually constituted of five judges. The Complainant objected to four of the judges forming part of the bench because they were respondents in proceedings instituted by him in person and which were pending as at that date. He thought that those judges should not sit in judgment on an issue that would affect the other proceedings he instituted in person. His objections were dismissed. 13. On the same day, the respondents to the motion objected to the Complainant's request for leave to appear in person and to the motion papers being lodged in his name as opposed to by an attorney. The basis of the objection was that the Supreme Court Rules 2000 do not permit litigants to initiate proceedings in person, except through an Attorney. The Rules in question repealed and replaced the previous Rules of the Supreme Court, 1903 which expressly permitted any person to institute proceedings in person. The point was argued by all the parties including the Complainant and the Supreme Court reserved its ruling. On three subsequent occasions pending the ruling, the Complainant made further written submissions in support of the position he had advanced in response to the respondents' objections. Page 3 of 45 ti.tri;,11, Un!O'lv!# t: African Commission on Human and Pe w 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo _i . West Coast Re «/ Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (22 41 'ooi,yq,,_ _,, r.c,<>Q ,q'-�"; FJ?icAltl��. ;1g f· Email: au-banjul@africa- f . ·. �•£ n DES\>�.,# https:/achpr.au.,nt/0·0� ·::::--·-;::7