Prosecutor General had disregarded proper procedures and the law, particularly the requirement to allow the Bar Council of the Burundi Bar Association the time prescribed by law within which to act. He further submitted that the entire process leading to disbarment of Mr. Rufyikiri in such an unprocedural manner was part of what he termed “the total scheme against the principle of good governance, democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human and people’s rights.” 83. In support of his stance that “any wanton disregard of the rule of law as happened in this case should be condemned by this Honourable Court as in breach of the Treaty which is the basic law of the Community” and supersedes national law on the same issues, learned Counsel referred us to Article 8(4) of the Treaty and the Authorities of R.V. Secretary of State for Transport, ex-part factortame Ltd. And Others [1990] ECR 1-2433; N.V. Algemene Transporta Expiditie Onderming Van gen En Loos V. Nederlandse Administratie Del Belastingen [1903] ECA 1 and Samuel Mukira Mohochi (supra). 84. Counsel concluded his submission on this matter by contending that accessing a remedy in Burundi was not a bar to the instant Reference and cited in support of his argument The Anyang’ Nyong’o Case (supra) and Antony Calist Komu Vs. The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, EACJ Ref. 7 of 2012. 85. The submission of the 1st Respondent’s Counsel on this issue has been reproduced above together with his submission on Issue No.1. Determination of Issue No. 2 86. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the parties on this matter. As framed, the issue can be divided into three REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 25