“The Court shall be a judicial body which shall ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with the Treaty.” Article 27 states that: “1. The Court shall initially have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of this Treaty; Provided that the Court’s jurisdiction to interpret under this paragraph shall not include the application of any such interpretation to jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on organs of Partner States; 2. 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 operationalize the extended jurisdiction.” 31. At the Scheduling Conference, parties agreed that the Reference raised triable issues meriting adjudication and pronouncement by this Court. However, Counsel for the Respondents have contended that the Court is only competent to entertain the Applicant’s prayers pertaining application of the Treaty. to the interpretation and Counsel for the 2nd Respondent further argued that the Court cannot determine issues raising human rights matters since such a jurisdiction still awaits the operationalization of a Protocol under Article 27(2) of the Treaty. 32. It is common knowledge that the extended jurisdiction as envisaged by Article 27(2) of the Treaty has not been conferred on this Court as decided especially in James Katabazi’s case REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2012 Page 11