State one more chance to makes its submissions. 18. At its 37th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 27th April to 11th May 2005, the African Commission considered the communication [and] took a decision on the merits thereof. Law Admissibility 19. The African Commission was seized with the present communication at its 32nd Ordinary Session which was held in Banjul, The Gambia from 17th to 23rd October 2002. The Respondent State has since been requested numerous times to forward its submissions on admissibility but to no avail. The African Commission will therefore proceed to deal with this matter on admissibility based on the facts presented by the Complainant. 20. Article 56 of the African Charter governs admissibility of communications brought before the African Commission in accordance with Article 55 of the African Charter. All of the conditions of this article are met by the present communication except Article 56(5), which merits special attention in determining the admissibility of this communication. 21. Article 56(5) of the African Charter provides: "Communications...received by the African Commission shall be considered if they: Article 56(5) are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged." 22. The rule requiring the exhaustion of local remedies as a condition of the presentation of a communication before the African Commission is premised on the principle that the Respondent State must first have an opportunity to redress by its own means, within the framework of its own domestic legal system, the wrong alleged to have been done to the individual(s). 23. The Complainant submits that as a result of the King's Proclamation to the Nation No. 12 of 1973, the written and democratic Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland enacted in 1968 containing a Bill of Rights was repealed. Furthermore, the Proclamation prohibited the Courts of the Kingdom of Swaziland from enquiring into the validity of the Proclamation or any acts undertaken in accordance with the Proclamation. 24. The Complainant indicates that under the Proclamation, the King assumes supreme power in the Kingdom and judicial power is vested in him and he retains the power to overturn all court decisions, thereby removing any meaningful legal avenue for redress. The complainant quotes the case of Professor Dlamini v The King to illustrate instances where the King has exercised his power to undermine 34 decisions of the courts. In that case, the Court of Appeal overturned the Non-Bailable Offences Order of 1993, which ousted the courts' jurisdiction to entertain bail applications. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal, the King issued a Decree, No. 2 of 2001, reinstating the Non Bailable Offences Order. However, due to international pressure, the King later repealed aspects of the reinstated Non Bailable Offenses Order by Decree No. 3 of 2001. 25. Therefore the Complainant argues they cannot exhaust domestic remedies because they are unavailable by virtue of the Proclamation and even where a matter could be instituted and won in the courts of Swaziland, it would not constitute a meaningful, durable remedy because the King would nullify such legal victory. 26. The Complainant provides all the Proclamations made by the King and after perusing the Proclamations, the African Commission notes that nowhere in all the Proclamations is there an ouster clause to the effect that the Courts of the Kingdom of Swaziland are prohibited from enquiring into the validity of the Proclamation or any acts undertaken in accordance with the Proclamation. 27. The African Commission has considered this matter and realises that for the past 31 years the Kingdom of Swaziland has had no Constitution. Furthermore, the complainant has presented the African Commission with information demonstrating that the King is prepared to utilise the judicial power vested in him to overturn court decisions. As such, the African Commission believes that taking into consideration the general context within which the judiciary in Swaziland is operating and the challenges that they have been faced with especially in the recent past, any remedies that could have been utilised with respect to the present communication would have likely been temporary. In other words, the African Commission is of the view that the likelihood of the complainant succeeding in obtaining a remedy that would redress the situation complained of in this matter is so minimal as to render it unavailable and therefore ineffective.1 For the reasons stated herein above, the African Commission declares this communication admissible. 2