appeal of Kobedi before the Botswana Court of Appeal at the instance of the Registrar of the High Court of Botswana. The Respondent State argues that though Kobedi accepted to have them as his legal representatives, they were not, as it were, the personal choice of Mr. Kobedi. 61. The Respondent State submits that the Communication dated 11 July 2003 and addressed to the African Commission was signed by Kobedi. However, it AC HP R argues that paragraph 15 of the Complainants written submissions on Admissibility sent by Email on 4 March 2004 lists the two lawyers as the authors of the Communication. The Respondents State assert that the said written submissions, do not, indicate to the African Commission the legal interest that Messrs Brain Spilg SC and Unoda Mack, jointly and severally, have in the Communication such that they should assume authorship of it, and the basis and source of that legal interest. The Respondent State argues that, instead, what Brain Spilg SC and Unoda Mack attempt to do in paragraph 3-14 of the submissions on Admissibility is to make a case for the African Commission to hear a matter originated by the deceased. 62. The Respondent State adds that Brain Spilg SC is a national of a foreign country, and as such, the only connection he has with Botswana is in relation to the privilege accorded him by Botswana to appear before her Courts. The Respondent State therefore questions whether Brain Spilg SC has any legitimate legal interest in the affairs of the country? 63. The Respondent State further argues that neither the laws of Botswana nor international laws incorporate the actio popularis doctrine. Consequently, Messrs Brain Spilg SC and Unoda Mack must demonstrate a sufficient legal interest in the Communication for them to possess locus standi to author it. The Respondent State contends that in adhering to the African Charter, it did not understand that 11