With a view to showing that courts do not have the power to validate native law and custom, this article highlights the different roles assigned to the assent of the people governed by native law and custom, and to the court called upon to determine its judicial enforceability. It argues that customary law is validated by the assent of the people and not by courts, and that the tests contained in different statutes by which courts are permitted to intervene in the regime of customary law are tests of enforceability and not tests of validity. As a result, it argues that the term “validity test” is misleading when used in relation to the power of courts to determine the enforceability of native law and custom, and should therefore be discarded.

This article examines the practice of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It argues that the court is wrong to maintain the view that it is not bound by the doctrine, simply because the court's protocol is silent on the point. The author urges the court to reconsider its view in order to align its practice with prevailing customary international law and treaty trends on the exhaustion of domestic remedies in international suits espoused before international courts by or on behalf of individuals.