43. Further, in Democratic Party vs. the Secretary General and the Attorneys General of the Republics of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, EACJ Reference No.2 of 2012, the Court rendered itself as follows:“Jurisdiction is quite different from the specific merits of any case…. As it is, it should be noted that one of the issues of agreement as set out by the parties is that there are triable issues based on Articles 6, 7, 27 and 30 of the Treaty. That is correctly so since once a party has invoked certain relevant provisions of the Treaty and alleges infringement thereon, it is incumbent upon the Court to seize the matter and within its jurisdiction under Articles 23, 27 and 30 determine whether the claim has merit or not. But where clearly the Court has no jurisdiction because the issue is not one that it can legitimately make a determination on, then it must down its tools and decline to take one more step- see: Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian ‘S’ vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd - [KLR].” 44. We wholly agree with the above exposition of the primacy of this Court’s jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Treaty and we therefore reiterate the above findings and in determining Issue (a), we have no doubt that the Reference as framed and argued, is properly before us and that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the substantive issues raised in the Reference. ISSUE (B) – WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BURUNDI PRESS LAW ARE INCONSISTENT WITH AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6(D) AND 7(2) OF THE TREATY: 45. This is the heart of the Reference and the issue requires that this Court should look at the specific impugned provisions of the Press Law Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 13