3. A fine or any other punitive measure to be meted out against the Counsel of
the Applicant for initiating a frivolous and unmeritorious suits which has the
tendency to waste the Court’s time and undermine the authority, dignity,
and integrity of the Court of Member States.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT.
23. The Court having heard the argument and written submission of the parties distilled
three issues for determination to wit:
1. WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE BY THE COURT.
2. WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAVING RESIGNED CAN STILL CLAIM THE STATUS
OF A “FORMER” MEMBER OF THE TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL.
3. WHETHER IF ISSUE [2] ABOVE IS RESOLVED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE
APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS CLAIMS.
24. Before proceeding to analyze the facts of this case, the Court must first address the
capacity of the 2nd to 4th Respondents who are the agents of the 1st Respondent –
The Republic of Liberia. It is trite law that only parties to treaties can be bound and
held responsible for their implementation. This Court has held on several occasions
that agents of member state of the ECOWAS treaty are not proper persons capable
of being sued before this Court for the violation of the said treaty or other relevant
international Human rights instruments signed by member state of the ECOWAS.In
the case of JOHNNY KING & 10 Ors V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 9 Ors
ECW/CCJ/RUL/06/19, the Court held that:
“The Court has looked at the laws regarding its jurisprudence as well as
precedents in this Court, and it is so clear that, it is only member states of
ECOWAS who are signatories to the treaties can be brought before this
Court for human rights violations and this Court has maintained that
position in all its decisions.”
Similarly in SERAP V. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & Ors
ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/10, The Court confirms that:
“In the context and legal framework of ECOWAS, the court stands by its
current understanding that only member States and Community
Institutions can be sued before it for alleged violation of human right as
laid down in Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue delivered on 11th
day of June 2010”.
9