ABC experts adopted predominantly tribal interpretation of their mandate... requiring them to delimit the are of Ngok area of 1905. Government however had territorial interpretation. Tribunal concludes that tribal interpretation *is not* unreasonable. Wording of formula can be interpreted either way, so not unreasonable. Object and purpose of formula supports tribal interpretation. Interpretation had function within context of CPA. The Ngok people were intended to be beneficiaries of provision for referendum, so interpeting as tribal not unreasonable. Tribal interpretation reasonable in historical perspective: boundaries in 1905 were uncertain; there was limited administration in 1905; Cond. officials had limited knowledge of Ngok; 1905 transfer effectuated to pacify.
Tribunal not required or authorized which (territorial or tribal) was more correct.
ABC DID NOT EXCEED MANDATE.
We don't need no education - *I have a massive backlog of half-written draft blog posts that I'm going to try and start getting out the door, so, er, enjoy the early Christmas presents...