31. Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court 2005 provides as follows:
“Individuals on application for relief of violation of their human right
the submission of which shall:
i.
not be anonymous; nor
ii.
be made whilst the same matter has
been
instituted
before
another
International court for adjudication;”
32. From the above stated Article it is clear that for anyone to initiate an application
before the Court, such an Applicant must possess the locus standi failing which
he will be deemed inadmissible. Locus standi as used in this sense simply
means an interest or a right to be protected. In the case of Alhaji Mohamed
Ibrahim Hassan v Governor of Gombe State v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012)
ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/12 @ page 83 (5) the Court had this to say:
“Applicants not being a victim or relation to a victim of the violation of
human rights has no locus to institute the action.”
33. With the decision referenced above, this Court has made it abundantly clear that
for any action by any individual to succeed the Applicant will be required as a
matter of law to establish the status of either a victim or an indirect victim.
Responding to the submission by the Respondent, the Applicant submitted that
they are non-governmental organizations working to protect human rights and the
tool of their work is through access to internet services. The Applicant claim that
where such access to internet is denied the right to work is adversely affected. In
view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has established an
interest and a right worthy to be protected. The Court therefore holds that the First
to the Seventh Applicant possess the locus standi and are entitled as such.
34. With respect to the submission by the Respondent that the First to the Seventh
Applicants are non-natural persons and therefore lack the locus standi to bring this
action. They submitted that they brought this action before this Court against the
Respondent to seek declaration to the extent that the shutting down of the internet
access by the Respondent violated their right to freedom of expression especially
9|Page