8.4 It is also argued that Applicant did not exhaust local remedies before approaching this court, as required by Article 6(2) of the Protocol, read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter. In this respect, it is argued that the Applicant, being a Nigerian national, should have taken his country to his national courts to compel his country to make the declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Respondent's argument is wrong in two respects. Firstly, the Applicant is not approaching the court as a Nigerian national, nor is he seeking a remedy for himself or Nigerian nationals only. Even if he had succeeded through Nigerian Courts to cause his own country to make the declaration, millions of nationals of the other State Parties to the Protocol which have not made the declaration would still remain barred. That only five State Parties have so far made the declaration, means that the multitude of individuals on the Continent remain barred by Article 34(6). Nigeria's declaration would hardly have made any difference. The logic of Respondent's argument is that nationals of each State Party which has not made the declaration should bring applications in every single national jurisdiction before approaching this court. This is a very theoretical approach, virtually impracticable, as opposed to the pragmatic one adopted by the Applicant. The protection of human rights is too important to be left to the vagrancies of such theoretical solutions, 8.5 Furthermore, Respondent contends that, by virtue of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, the Applicant, being an individual, is barred from approaching this court. Surely, one cannot disqualify the Applicant from approaching this Court by invoking the very article the validity of which the Applicant is seeking to challenge. The Court must first hear the matter and only thereafter, (emphasis) decide whether the impugned article is valid or not. Article 3(2) of the Protocol provides that in "the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide." For the Court to decide, it must first be seized by an applicant. It is precisely the person who has been shut out who will knock at the door to be heard on the validity of the ouster clause. This Court therefore has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of Article 34(6) at the instance of an individual applicant. Applicant's answer to Respondent's argument is that since he is not citing a member state, but rather the Respondent, Article 34(6) has no application. There is merit in this argument. The Article only requires that State Parties make the declaration, and not non-State Parties. The law is not against an individual per se, but is aimed at protecting a State Party which has not made the declaration; that is why even a foreign individual can sue a State Party that has made the declaration. 8.6 Again, it is argued that the Court has, in any event, no power to set aside Article 34(6) of the Protocol. As this argument is capable of being divorced from the strict issue of jurisdiction, it will be dealt with later. 9. By reason of it having been empowered, and charged with the obligation, by Member States to administer, apply and enforce the Charter and the Protocol, both of which form the subject matter of this case, the Respondent has in any case a material and direct interest in the matter and therefore had to be cited. 10. For the reasons given above, the preliminary objections are overruled. That being the case, attention now turns to the merits of the case. Whether Article 34(6) of the Protocol is inconsistent with the Charter. 11. As already stated, the protection of human and peoples' rights is one of the objectives of the Act, as was indeed the case under the old Charter of the OAU. 12. The Charter: The fundamental objective of the Charter was, and remains, to uphold and protect human and peoples' rights. This objective appears clearly from its preamble, and is cemented in,amongst others, the following Articles relied upon by the Applicant: Article 1: "The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity. parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedom enshrined in that Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative 4