33. The import of Article 27(2) became a point of contention in submissions and at the hearing. Article 27 (2) is framed as follows: “The Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction.” 34. Again a plain reading of the incremental language of the aforesaid provision would be enough. The provision says that the Court shall have other jurisdiction at some future time. We think that if the intention of the framers of the Treaty had been to deny the Court any type of jurisdiction, as claimed by the Respondent, they would have categorically and expressly provided so, in a prohibitive phrase, like “The Court shall not have original, appellate, human rights jurisdiction and other jurisdiction....” or words to precisely convey such intent. Indeed the framers used such a phrase in Article 30(3). It is quite obvious to us that the import of the Article, as we have said before, and do repeat here, is that the framers merely intended to extend, progressively add to or widen the jurisdiction of the Court. In Plaxeda Rugumba v.The Attorney General of Rwanda, Reference No 10 of 2010, we said, inter alia, that; “there is no doubt that the use of the words, “...other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction....” is merely in addition to, and not in derogation to, existing jurisdiction....”. 35. Clearly, the sub-article is intended to provide for the giving to this Court of other jurisdiction, which Council will determine, at a suitable subsequent future date. It does not in any way impinge on the Court’s jurisdiction, under Article 27 (1), to interpret and apply any and all provisions of the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 15