74. Moreover, the Court observes that although the drafting of a constitution by Parliament or by a Constituent National Assembly does not exclude the possibility of a referendum, no provision of the African Charter or of any other human rights instrument makes a referendum a mandatory requirement.17 75. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that in the present case the people participate indirectly in the drafting and adoption of the 27 January 2014 Constitution as well as in its promulgation. 76. Accordingly, the Court, holds that the Respondent State did not violate the people’s right to self-determination, protected by Article 20 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the independence of the courts 77. The Applicant alleges that since his ascension to power, the President of the Respondent State has incapacitated the judiciary. She maintains that with the adoption of Organic Law No. 2014-014 of 18 April 2014 on the Provisional Institution for the Control of the Constitutionality of Draft Laws, the Constitutional Court was "dissolved" and its powers devolved to the IPCCPL. She contends that under the same Organic Law No. 2014-014 of 18 April 2014, it is the same IPCCPL that has oversight responsibility for the judiciary since the High Judicial Council has also been “dissolved”. 78. The Applicant further alleges that, the adoption of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court on 3 December 2015 and the abolition of the IPCCPL on 22 September 2021 notwithstanding, the Constitutional Court has not yet been set up and that, according to supporters of the President of the Republic, “its much sought-after installation is to settle scores with the Head of State”. 17 See Michele Brandt, Jill Cottrell, Yash Ghai, Anthony Regan, in Le processus constitutionnel: élaboration et réforme - Quelles options?. Ed. Interpeace, February 2015, page 34. 21