to interrogate those allegations. We are of course aware that this Court in the case of Rugumba vs Attorney General of Rwanda, Reference No.8 of 2010 invoked the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights to find in favour of the Applicant but it must be understood that the said finding was made in the context of specific violations of Article 6(d) of the Treaty and not the Charter per se. We shall therefore hold and find that we have the requisite jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the Reference, but subject to what we shall say later about the Court’s jurisdiction as regards interpretation of other international instruments and specifically the African Charter and the Protocol. Issue No.2: Whether the Issues raised in the Reference are Justiciable 35. On this issue, the Respondents made the point that the issues raised are not justiciable in that it is not the province of this Court to compel a Partner State to perform a purely Executive function. 36. The Applicant on the other hand went into great detail to show why the issues raised are all about access to justice and that the defence of sovereignty is not available to the Respondents since they ceded part of their sovereignty when they acceded to the African Charter and the Treaty. That once this was done, then by denying NGOs and individuals access to the African Court, the Respondents were acting in violation of the Treaty and the issues placed before the Court are, therefore, justiciable. 37. “Justiciable” has been defined to mean “of a case or dispute properly before a Court of Justice; capable of being disposed of judicially in a justiciable controversy” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition “Justiciability” has been defined in the same dictionary as “the quality or state of being appropriate or suitable for adjudication by a Court”. 20 | P a g e