r) c� !:LEB p.CHPII j Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 101. The Complainant then put a number of questions to the Commission for determination. For the sake of concision and ease of understanding, the Commission has summarized those questions in the following paragraphs. 102. The Complainant wants to obtain a determination as to whether that the Supreme Court erred by ruling that Rule 3(3) Supreme Court Rules 2000 is mandatory in the institution of proceedings " before this Court as well as the institution of proceedings before a Judge in Chambers, now requires recourse to an attorney". The Complainant submits that the Supreme Court has thus breached the right to the protection of the law and due process and procedural rights of access to courts [guaranteed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights]. 103. He submits that the integrity of the trial process was breached because of the participation of the Chief Justice and the Senior Puisne Judge in hearing the matter, in view of the challenge made against them by the Complainant. He claims that the Chief Justice who assigned the bench of 5 Judges, including himself, to decide his case has been judge in his own cause. 104. The Complainant submits that the invariable consistent stance of the Supreme Court having heard and decided several cases where [the Complainant] personally initiated all such proceedings in person until 2011 is testimony to the wider principle of the protection of the law, direct access to court and not "the result of an oversight" as the Court puts it. 105. The Complainant further submits that, to his view, the repeal of Rule 60 of the 1903 Court Rules was intended to provide effective right to direct access to the courts and the introduction of a provision in the Fourth Schedule of the Legal Fees and Costs Rules 2000 pursuant to Section 198 of the Courts Act that reads "There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund, by the attorney of the party concerned or where no attorney is employed, by the party, the fees paid in Part A of the Schedule" was meant to dispense the services of an attorney. 106. The Complainant also contends that the repeal of RuleJL -='tt-u: existence of express provisions in the Fourth Sch�f�-• jurisdiction or residual discretion to the Supreme Coui,tl Page 24 of 45 3 and the herent ii! 3 n African Comm'�!,i � 31 Bijilo An Phone: < Rights Em ���� ambia 1 05 04 - nion.org https:/achpr.au.inuO O a