694 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) of an impartial body. This link between the Electoral Commission’s lack of independence and its impartiality had, besides, been highlighted by the Applicant in the following terms: “As agents of the President of the Republic, or members of his government or institutions supporters of which control the senior management, the 13 members of the Central Commission cannot be considered impartial in any 24 way whatsoever”.24 24. As the question of independence and impartiality of the Independent Electoral Commission is of crucial importance in the case before the Court, it deserves to be examined in a more methodical and 25 in-depth manner.25 II. The Court made a ruling beyond the bounds of the Applicant’s pleadings 25. It seems to me important to indicate that the Applicant invoked only the violation of the right to “equality before the law” and Articles 10(3) and 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Contrary to what is stated in the judgment, the Applicant never invoked a violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Applicant did not also invoke a violation of the right to “equal protection of the law”. 26. In paragraphs 20 and 107 of the judgment, however, it is stated under “Alleged Violations” that: “The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated its commitment to establish an independent and impartial electoral body as well as its commitment to protect the right to equality before the law and to equal protection by the law, as prescribed by Articles 3 and 13(1) and (2) of the Charter on Human Rights, Articles 10(3) and 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy, Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Covenant”) - emphases are mine). 27. And yet, it is on the basis of all the allegations contained in that paragraph that the Court made its ruling. It is therefore my opinion that the Court has ruled beyond the bounds of the Applicant’s submissions. 28. In both its written pleadings and oral proceedings, the Applicant actually invoked violation of only one of the afore-cited legal instruments, namely, the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. In its original Application dated 9 July 2014, the Applicant 24 Additional Application, p. 12 25 In this respect, a comparative approach could have been useful - see for example, Electoral Commissions in West Africa - Comparative Study , Book edited by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (Abuja Regional Office) with ECOWAS Electoral Assistance Unit, February 2011. To ensure the autonomy of an electoral commission, this study suggests, in particular, that “the interest of the members of the Commission do not conflict with that of the organization of quality elections. This may be the case, for example, where the representatives of the candidates (parties or individuals) have a casting vote in the Commission’s decision-making process” p. 102.