Preliminary Objections [13] Before addressing these substantive issues, there were certain preliminary objections to Mr Mustapha’s claim that must first be addressed. The Attorney General submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and also, that Mr Mustapha had no proper standing to initiate these proceedings. The Attorney General contended that the appointment of the Elections Commission Chairman was not justiciable as it was excluded from Article 163 which reserves to the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to review specific matters including elections. He further submitted that Article 161(2) creates an executive power in the President in the nature of a convention and as such the Article was not reviewable by the courts. Finally, it was said that, even if the matter was justiciable, it is the Leader of the Opposition, and not Mr Mustapha, who was the proper party to sue; that Mr Mustapha’s reliance on being a citizen, a registered elector and a Member of the National Assembly, among other things, was insufficient to establish his interest as a party to this case. [14] These preliminary objections were raised in one form or the other in the courts below and rightly overruled. Unless specifically ousted or constrained, the court has an inherent and unfettered jurisdiction in matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.5 It is the court that authoritatively settles what the Constitution means and whether some action that is taken by a constitutional actor is within or outside that actor’s constitutional remit. The Attorney General was right to note that the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM was not included in the list of matters contained in Article 163 over which the High Court has a peculiar jurisdiction. But it is precisely that omission that ensures that the court’s jurisdiction to inquire into the propriety of the appointment of the Chairman is unconstrained by the strictures that attend inquiry into those matters that are embraced by Article 163. Where legitimate questions are raised by a citizen that the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM may not have been in accordance with the imperatives of the Constitution, the court is free to have resort to its inherent jurisdiction and should not turn away the person who 5 See: AG v Joseph and Boyce [2006] CCJ 3 AJ.