005057 of the 1992 Constitution.'? It contends that the Application before this Court is hinged on a wrong assumption that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining constitutional matters and that its exercise of its review power was undue usurpation of the powers of the High Court. 98.In conclusion, the Respondent State contends that the Applicant had the opportunity to be heard, to present and prosecute his case through legal counsel. It maintains that even if the Applicant disagrees with the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is “ill” for him to interpret it as a violation of his human rights, especially because the Supreme Court in its review decision assumed jurisdiction provided under the Constitution to deal with the Applicant’s outstanding issues. He ¥e 99. The Court notes that Article 7 (1) (a) of the Charter provides, inter alia, that “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws regulations and customs in force....” 100. The Court notes that in the present case, the key issue is whether the Applicant's right to be heard by a competent tribunal was violated as a result of the decision of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court hearing the matter rather than referring it to the High Court. 'S Article 181(5) provides that this article shall, with the necessary modifications by Parliament, apply to an international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a party as it "A. a loan. aye We