previous transaction and gives it a difforent legal effect from that which it had under the law when it occurred. 20. Counsel submitted that the intention of ECOVvAS was to make the Supplementmy Protocol have retrospective effect. Rather unfortunate to recall, Counsel did not refer to even a single word in the entire Supplementary Protocol from which the remotest implication could be made that it should have retrospective effect. Counsel did not say in what way it was procedural. From Counsels' own submission, the Supplementary Protocol is a law that creates rights, albeit the right of access to the Court to individuals, thus it is substantive law. By implication too, since there is nothing on the face of the Supplementary Protocol that it should be retTospective, it should not be given that effect. Competer1ce, 21. The Revised Treaty of 1993 is the supreme law ofECOWAS, and it may be called its Constitution. By Article 89 of the Revised Treaty, Protocols made pursuant thereto shall fo1m an integral pm't thereof. .22. The Community Court of Justice (CCJ) was established by virtue of Article 15 (1) of the Revised Treaty. The status, composition, power, procedure and other issues concerning the Court are contained in its 1991 Protocol. The competence of the Comi is set out in Articles 9 and 10. By A1'ticle 32 of the 1991 Protocol, the Com't was empowered to establish its 'o,vn Rules of Procedure. 23. The 1991 Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol both set out what jurisdictional competence the Court shall have. The difference in the two is that the competence is more expansive in the Supplementary Protocol than in the 1991 Protocol. The Supplementmy Protocol did not touch any of the 7 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm