• WHETHER THE COURT HAS THE COMPETENCE TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE CLAIM BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS.
• IF THE ANSWER IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE COURT MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED
A VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS AS CLAIMED.
• WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE
PUBLIC ORDER ACT OF THE GAMBIA CONTRAVENES THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER.
• WHETHER THIS COURT HAS COMPETENCE TO DECLARE THE
JUDGEMENTS OF NATIONAL COURT NULL AND VOID.
• WHETHER THE 32ND APPLICANT HAS CAPACITY TO INITIATE
THIS APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF EBRIMA SOLO SANDENG
(DECEASED).
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE COURT HAS THE COMPETENCE TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CLAIM BROUGHT BY THE
APPLICANTS.
Competence is a matter of statutory provision. The Court by itself cannot
assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on any matter except by clear mandate
conferred on it by statutory provisions. Jurisdiction therefore is the mandate
and power conferred on the Court to adjudicate on any matter that is
brought before it. In this instance, the jurisdiction of this Court is provided
for by Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05 Amending
Protocol (A/P1/7/91))
and the Court recognizes that the basis of the
Applicants claim is specifically anchored to the Provisions of Article 9 (4) of
the said Supplementary Protocol Amending the said Protocol of the Court
to wit:
“The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation
of human rights that occur in the Member States.”
Article 10 (d) specifically grants access to the Court to individuals wo are
seeking relief for violation of their Human Rights and it further provided the
conditions precedent :
11