46. The 1st Respondent has urged that he has no role in the matter at hand and that he has no supervisory role over the Partner States as regards their commitments outside the Treaty. 47. The Applicant’s position is to the contrary and to us, the issue again portends no difficulty at all. The Treaty in Article 67 creates the office of the Secretary General of the East African Community and sets out his duties in Article 67(3) which includes being “the head of the Secretariat.” Article 71 sets out the functions of the Secretariat which are not important to restate but Article 29 grants the Secretary General the mandate to submit his or her findings to a Partner State if he considers “that a Partner State has failed to fulfill an obligation under [the] Treaty or has infringed a provision of [the] Treaty” and if the response is not satisfactory, he may refer it to this Court for resolution or to the Council and if no resolution is made either way, thence to this Court for a final decision thereof. 48. In his Response to the Reference, the 1st Respondent indicated that once he got wind of the Applicant’s complaint, he wrote to all the Respondents seeking a clarification on the matter and once the Reference was filed, he left the matter in the hands of the Court. 49. The Applicant, however, considers that the 1st Respondent should have done more but we disagree. The principal issue before us is whether delay in depositing declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol was in violation of the Treaty. In our view, the 1st Respondent did what he would in his circumstances and once the matter was placed before this Court, he had nothing more to do. He has no specific role under the African Charter and Protocol and to expect him to do more than he did would be unreasonable. Like the 4th Respondent, he has already acted as required by law and the cause of action even if it existed, no longer subsists as against him and he is improperly before 23 | P a g e