willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to countenance behavior that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.” (Emphasis added). His Lordship went on to add that: “It is to my mind unthinkable that in such circumstances the court should declare itself to be powerless and stand idly by.” He then went further to refer to the words of Lord Devlin in Connelly vs. DPP [1964] 2 All ER 401 at 442: where His Lordship said that: “The courts cannot contemplate for a moment the transference to the executive of the responsibility for seeing that the process of law is not abused.” 41. We wholly subscribe to the above position and even without the extended jurisdiction in human rights issues, this Court cannot stand idly by and declare itself to be impotent of the capacity to render itself forcefully where the rule of law is threatened in its eyes and in the eyes of the Treaty. In submissions, the 2nd Respondent contended partly as follows: “As stated previously, the 2nd Respondent is of the humble opinion that if the EACJ declares itself competent to deal with a case pending before national courts, it would create very REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 28