Case that he submitted that a cause of action against the 1st Respondent had not arisen. 2nd Respondent’s Submissions 41. On his part, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent opted to address issues No.1 and No.3 jointly while stating that issue No. 2 did not relate to him. 42. Relying on the decision in Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and 10 Others Vs The Attorney General of Kenya and 3 Others, EACJ Ref. No. 1 of 2006 (The Anyang’ Nyong’o Case) in which the nature of a statutory cause of action under Article 30(1) was expounded by this Court, he submitted however that no such cause of action as envisaged in the Reference arose against him. 43. He contended that the Applicant’s claim against him is mostly based on suppositions that having been well aware of Mr. Rufyikiri’s circumstances, he elected to do nothing about the matter, remained silent and failed to undertake, on his own initiative, investigations into the 1st Respondent’s conduct in handling Mr. Rufyikiri’s issue. Thus, Counsel argued that those suppositions on which the Applicant’s claim was premised were not borne by any evidence in the Applicant’s pleadings or at all and that the absence of evidence ought to be noted in the Applicant’s disfavour. 44. As regards the 2nd Respondent’s responsibilities under the Treaty, Counsel pointed out that the relevant provisions regulating this matter are Articles 29 and 71 of the Treaty and that Articles 143, 146 and 147 read together with Articles 67 and 71 of the Treaty referred to matters that were beyond the 2nd Respondent’s competence. 45. Article 29(1) of the Treaty provides that “Where the Secretary General considers that a Partner State has failed to fulfil an REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 15