ACHPR Human Rights our Collective Responsibility African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 97. The Complainant avers that the motion before the Supreme Court to re-open the disciplinary proceedings settled by himself was listed for 2 July 2011 but the five­ bench Judge decreed that all proceedings before the Supreme Court must be instituted by an Attorney pursuant to Rule 3(3) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000. He avers that he had thereafter retained the services of an Attorney but the latter passed away on 3 August 2012. He further alleges that he had previously settled motions and affidavits without recourse to an Attorney with no objection either from the parties or from the courts. 98. The Complainant avers that he sought to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but, on 13 December 2011, his application for special leave was refused. In rejecting his application for leave to appeal, the JCPC reasoned : "the applications do not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Judicial Committee at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal and because it would be an abuse of process to permit the appellant to argue issues which were not the subject of decisions by the Court below," which reasoning the Complainant contends is incorrect. 99. The Complainant submits that, contrary to the JCPC's findings, his complaint raises several arguable points in law of fundamental importance, that it relates to unwarranted restrictions placed by the court in relation to the protection of the law and due process, together with questions of great general public importance which ought to be examined and determined by the Supreme Court. 100. In his submissions, the Complainant also questions the impartiality of the Court. He cites a number of court proceedings instituted by himself against judges and judicial officers, including the then Chief Justice and other state officials. He notably alleges that, on 21 and 22 February 2011, during hearings before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice displayed an unwillingness to allow the Complainant to address the Court until he was invited to do so by another Judge of the same Bench. He also points to a number of alle ed family ties between judicial officers and other unconfirmed unethical b 'allegedly made 7,_..,, c,te,R 41?14I 4 i<' ::9 the them acting in a biased way against him.1 �l o ;;hltii�� 19 See paras. 17-19 above. V o 1f" ;f � � ,;. i g ""l z:. ";, Page 23 of 45 AU-UA � � • iJ ',i' �-i;, ""--..- o"-"<Y"'"' � African C hili§.{�16Alffu�t 31 Biji � Pa, ombo North District, est Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org hnps:/achpr.au.int/0 CJ a