50. Lastly, the Complainant avers that the Nigerian judiciary process is weak and cases are unduly prolonged, making recourse to them ineffective. 51. The Respondent State on its part, submits that even though the rights alleged to have been violated are not justiciable under the Nigerian Constitution of 1999, the domestication of the African Charter by virtue of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Chapter 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990) empowers the Nigerian courts to enforce or give remedies under the provision of the African Charter. Furthermore, that Chapter 2 (sections 13 to 24) of the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 portrays the State’s commitment to promotion and protection of the socio-economic rights of its citizens, and that the government has enunciated some policies and institutions that are aimed at protecting the socio-economic rights of its citizens. 52. Considering the arguments brought by the Complainant before this Commission, the latter is of the view that the Complainant has failed to prove that local remedies are not available. It is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness and availability of the domestic remedies. However, it is also the Commission’s view that the policies and institutions which have been enunciated by the government are administrative remedies and not legal remedies. Moreover, the Respondent has not shown the potential effectiveness of the local remedies that are alleged to exist for the benefit of the applicants. 53. The Complainant contends that it could not exhaust local remedies due to the strict interpretation of the principle of locus standi in Nigeria, especially when it involves a large number of plaintiffs. The Commission notes that, notwithstanding the strict interpretation of this rule, Nigerian courts allow class/representative actions where numerous persons have the same interest, right and a common grievance, and the judgement obtained is binding on all the persons represented. 54. Section 6(6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution in Nigeria, which is the same as Section 6(6)(b) in the 1999 Constitution provides that: The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to all matters between persons, or between governments or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person. 55. On the basis of the above, Justice Belo of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of Abraham Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that: Section 6(6)(b) can be interpreted to mean that, standing can only be accorded to a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or affected by the act complained of.3 56. The decision became a binding precedent for most class action litigations in Nigeria, even though there were dissenting opinions on the fact of considering section 6(6)(b) as a test for locus standi. It was held in NNPC v Fawehinmi for instance that: This section is not [in]tended to be a catch-all, all purpose provision to be pressed into service for determining questions ranging from locus standi to the most uncontroversial questions of 4 jurisdiction. 57. Supporting Justice Belo’s opinion in the Adesanya case, Justice Pats-Acholonu of the Supreme Court in Ladejobi v Oguntayo, also stated that: “it is dangerous to limit the opportunity for one to canvass his case by rigid adherence to the ubiquitous principle inherent in locus standi which is whether a person has standing in a case. The society is becoming highly dynamic and certain stands of yester years may no longer stand in the 5 present state of our social and political development.” 58. With the above submissions, this Commission is of the view that Nigerian courts can properly employ the locus standi rule in class actions. The question should not be whether it is a public or private action, but whether the applicants sufficiently prove violation of the rights alleged and demonstrates enough interest. For this reason, the Complainant cannot rely on the argument that it could not exhaust local remedies due to the large number of plaintiffs involved and the strict interpretation of the principle of locus standi in Nigeria.