( if any is predicated on an existing law, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. b) That the action of the Plaintiffs is inadmissible because it will tantamount to the Court granting them freedom to violate a previously existing law of a member State of ECOWAS and further submitted that once it is established that an infringement on the liberty of the individual is in conformity with reasons and conditions previously laid down by law, the Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge such infringement. Furthermore that the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them in this case. They have not established by credible evidence that their rights have been violated since their stories appear fabricated aimed at misleading the Court to “give them freedom to sell sex in the street” (Emphasis ours). c) Finally the Defendants contended that the 2 nd Plaintiffs’ action is statute barred not having been brought within the three year period stipulated by Article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol of this Court 2005, and urged the Court to dismiss the action. Having examined the issue in contention between the Parties, arising from the facts stated, the following issues calls for determination: 1. Whether this action as constituted falls within the jurisdiction of the Court as to vest it with the competence to entertain same. 23