4) Whether the Applicant had locus standi to present the Reference;
5) Whether the delay by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to
deposit their respective declarations was a violation of Articles
5,6,7,8(1)(c), 126 and 130 of the Treaty; Articles 1(2), 7, 13, 26, 62,
65 and 66 of the Charter; and Articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 34 of the
Protocol;
6) Whether the 1st Respondent had a duty under the Treaty, the
Charter or the Protocol to compel and/ or to supervise the 2nd, 3rd,
and 5th Respondents in depositing their declarations under Article
34 (6) of the Protocol;
7) Whether the Parties were entitled to the remedies sought.
4
On the 1st issue, the First Instance Division held that it had the
requisite jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the
Reference. However, the same Court held that it had no jurisdiction
to interpret other international instruments and specifically the
Charter and its Protocol.
5
On the 2nd issue, the First Instance Division held that the issues
placed before it were justiciable.
6
On issue No 3, the First Instance Division held that in the context
of the Reference before it, neither the facts nor the eventual
remedy to be granted or denied would create a cause of action
against the 1stRespondent.
7
On issue No. 4, the First Instance Division resolved that the
Applicant had locus standi.
8
On issue No.5, the First Instance Division found no contravention
of the Treaty, the Charter, or the Protocol.
3