B. The Position of the Respondent 41. In general terms, the Respondent avers that the Application, and each and every allegation thereof, fails to state a claim against the Respondent, either in law or in fact, upon which any relief may be granted. 42. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Respondent denies that the Protocol as well as the Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union were adopted by the African Union and submits that these instruments were adopted by Member States of the African Union as is evident from their preambles. He adds that according to Article 63(1) of the Charter and Article 34(1) of the Protocol, the two instruments are open to signature, ratification or accession by African States only. 43. The Respondent states that, in Article 34(6), the Protocol talks about a State and therefore submits that the African Union not being a State cannot ratify the Protocol and that the Protocol cannot be interpreted in a manner which calls in a corporate entity to assume obligations on behalf of the State. 44. The Respondent maintains that it is not a party to the Charter, nor to the Protocol and that therefore, no case can be brought against it for obligations of Member States under the Charter and the Protocol, in its corporate capacity. 45. The Respondent contends that, in the case at hand, ratification of treaties by Member States of the African Union has never been ceded to the African Union by its Member States; that the African Union cannot be held liable for failure by the Member States to ratify them, or failure to make the requisite declaration. The Court composed of: Gerard NIYUNGEKO, President; Sophia A.B. AKUFFO, Vice- President; Jean MUTSINZI, Bernard M. NGOEPE, Modibo T.GUINDO, Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Augustino Si. RAMADHANI, Duncan TAMBALA, Elsie N. THOMPSON and Sylvain ORE- Judges; and Robert ENO Registrar In the matter of: Femi Falana Esq., appearing in person v. The African Union, represented by Mr. Ben KIOKO, Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission Mr, Bright MANDO, Legal Officer, Office of The Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission Advocate Bahame Mukirya Tom NYANDUGA After deliberation, delivers the following majority judgment: 46. In addition, the Respondent avers that the Applicant has not shown any traceable causal connection whatsoever between the African Union and his lack of access to the Court. Therefore, the Respondent submits that there is no case or controversy between the Applicant and the Respondent to be decided by the Court. 47. Finally, the Respondent maintains that the Applicant is not entitled to submit cases to the Court both under the Protocol and the Rules and urges the Court to determine as a preliminary issue, whether the Court can exercise jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae with respect to the Application. 48. With regard to the admissibility of the Application, the Respondent contends that even if the Applicant had a right of access to the Court, which he does not have, he should have exhausted the local remedies in Nigeria, as required by Article 6(2) of the Protocol, Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules, which he has not done. 49. With regard to the merits of the case, that is, the issue of inconsistency of Article 34(6) of the Protocol with some provisions of the Charter, the Respondent states in general terms that it is the sovereign right of 5