CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES Whether the Reference is properly before the Court Submissions 19. The question as to whether this Reference is properly before the Court was a point of law challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and was raised by the Respondent. It was argued by Ms Maureen Ijang, the Respondent’s Counsel, who submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Reference basically for two reasons: i) that the Reference is mainly based on allegations of human rights violations and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to try such violations by virtue of the “clear provisions of Article 27 of the Treaty which expressly put allegations of human rights violations in the Court’s extended jurisdiction which is not yet in place...” (sic) It was her contention that “the intention of the framers of the Treaty was that this Court would not interpret human rights matters until a protocol allowing it to do so is concluded.” (sic) In support of this argument, Counsel referred us to the case of James Katabazi & 21 Others v Attorney General of Uganda, EAC Reference No. 1 of 2011 (The Katabazi case), as well as to that of the Attorney General of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2011 (the IMLU Case) in which the Appellate Division stated that for the Court to claim and exercise jurisdiction in any matter, it has to find and supply, through interpretation of the Treaty, the source and basis for such jurisdiction, in the circumstances of the matter before it. Similarly Counsel submitted that to the extent that the Applicant is alleging human rights violations by the Respondent and seeking declarations that the actions of the Respondent violated “the human rights provisions in the Treaty”,(sic) the Court should find REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 9