51. Rather, the Respondent State avers that the first Complainant did not engage and exhaust the appropriate remedy for the type of complaint now before the Commission. It maintains that the appropriate remedy is a constitutional review. The competency to deal with a constitutional challenge is of a judicial nature, and unlike in many jurisdictions, this competence is exclusively vested in the House of Federation assisted by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry. 52. The Complainants do not dispute that a constitutional review is provided for under domestic law and that the competent national organ for that purpose is the House of Federation assisted by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry. Instead, as noted in paragraph 41 above, the Complainants advance three arguments to obviate the duty to pursue a constitutional challenge as a remedy for the grievance at hand. 53. The Commission is not persuaded by the Complainants’ argument that a constitutional review was not necessary because the grievance did not require interpretation of the Constitution. The domestic courts’ judgments indicate that the first Complainant pleaded a case that is in some material respects different from the one pleaded before the Commission. The claims before domestic authorities were substantially threefold: (a) that the freezing of its funds was premature in terms of Article 10(2) of the Council of Ministers Regulations and the circular issued by the Ministry of Justice (see paragraph 5 above); (b) that the seizure indiscriminately and erroneously applied to funds lawfully acquired from foreign sources before the CSO Proclamation came into force, and funds lawfully sourced domestically; and (c) that the CSO Agency has no power to freeze or seize assets under the enabling law and consequently the seizure of it funds was unlawful. 54. Evidently, the first Complainant challenged only the propriety of the practical measures adopted against it. The first Complainant case was that the measures adopted against it were contrary to the CSO Proclamation, the Council of Ministers Regulations and the circular issued by the Ministry of Justice. In doing so, the first Complainant proceeded as though it had no problem with certain provisions of the CSO Proclamation itself. The decisions of the Federal High Court and the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court indicate that the first Complainant neither pleaded the case that the measures complained of violated any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Respondent State’s Constitution, nor the case that certain provisions of the CSO Proclamation are inconsistent with the fundamental rights. Yet the complaint now before the Commission is precisely that certain parts of the CSO Proclamation and the measures adopted against the first Complainant are inconsistent with and therefore 14 | P a g e