(;i""iJ 6�!:tEf1 uuxco . Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 14. Meanwhile, various cases instituted in person by the Complainant were being stayed by the Courts pending the ruling of the Supreme Court as mentioned in paragraph 13 above. 15. On 1 July 2011, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling (the 1 July 2011 ruling) upholding the objection that under the Supreme Court Rules 2000 persons cannot initiate proceedings in person. Instead, proceedings have to be initiated through an attorney, save in exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court did not find any exceptional circumstances quoad the Complainant's motion for an order to re­ open his criminal case, and thus set it aside. 16. The Complainant sought special leave of theJCPC to appeal with respect to two matters: (a) the 1 July 2011 ruling of the Supreme Court; and (b) a decision in contempt proceedings instituted by the Complainant against the then Chief Justice. He states that the issue of the right to litigate in person did not arise in the second matter. On 13 December 2011 the JCPC refused the Complainant leave to appeal against those rulings because the appeals did not raise arguable points of law of general public importance. 17. The Complainant further states that since the above-mentioned proceedings, he has come to learn of various underhand machinations which he believes led to his trial, conviction, disbarment, and subsequently being prevented from instituting and prosecuting his cases as a litigant in person. The matters relate to the conduct of the then SPJ who later became the CJ. The alleged conduct, which he believes was motivated by personal vendetta against him, borders on alleged surreptitious interferences and undue influences by the then SPJ/ CJ in various proceedings concerning the Complainant. Among others, the alleged interferences included manipulating the composition of the Intermediate Court which tried and convicted him; manipulating and interfering with the prosecuting authorities; manipulation of the disciplinary proceedings against him; and influencing judicial officers who were handling his various cases. 18. In addition to the alleged interferences, the then CJ exhibited what he believes is nepotistic partiality in favour of a medical doctor by granting the latter provisional permission to practice medicine after his licence was not renewed on account of a conviction. Page 4 of 45 African Commission on Human and P 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast R Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: ( Email: au-banjul@af https:/ach !