64.In fact, to our minds, the Applicant made a mountain out of an anthill. We say so, with tremendous respect, because whereas we see the difficulty created by Article 34(6) of the Protocol and whereas we note the importance attributed to the issue at hand, the simple issue of the alleged delay and timeframe to deposit the declarations did not require more than this simple answer; there is no connection between the issue and the Treaty. This issue must be answered in the negative and we have shown why. Issue No.6: Whether the 1st Respondent has a duty under the Treaty, the Charter or the Protocol to compel Control or supervise the 2nd, 3rd 4th and 5th Respondents to deposit Declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol 65. We are of the view that our answer to Issue No. 3 sufficiently disposes of this issue and we need say no more. Issue No.7: Whether the Parties are entitled to the Remedies Sought 66. We have said enough to show that the Reference is misguided on the main issue for determination. We are aware that other African Countries in their own wisdom have already deposited the declarations under Article 34(6). They include the United Republic of Tanzania , Burkina Faso, Malawi, Mali and the Republic of Rwanda. They did so in their own time – 1998, 2008, 2010 and 2013, respectively. Neither the 1st Respondent nor this Court can compel the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents to do so and the reasons are obvious. 67. Lastly, there is the issue of costs. The Applicant has not succeeded but even in the case of the Republic of Rwanda which only deposited the declarations after being served with this Reference, we do not deem it fit to penalize the Applicant with costs as it was pursuing a purely public interest matter. 68. Let each Party, therefore, bear its own costs. 28 | P a g e