Laws. The Plaintiff failed to lead any evidence or establish with specificity that any of them applied for the said mining license and was denied on the sole reason that he is from the Niger Delta. They thus failed to discharge the evidential burden of proof necessary to establish their allegation. Above all the Defendants acted within the purview of its Domestic Law which this Court lacks competence to question same in situation that its provisions have the effect of violating the rights of the Plaintiffs. In Front for Liberation of the State Of Cabinda V. Republic Of Angola 5th November 2013, ACHPR, 328/06, 54TH Ordinary Session, where the Plaintiffs brought the application on behalf of the People of Cabinda on alleged violations of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter, by infringing on their rights to natural resources, authorizing exploitation activities that did not favor the development of the people of Cabinda and allowing companies to operate in manners that are harmful to the environment and human health. The Commission held that the complainant failed to adduce evidence to support that the people of Cabinda were treated unequally in comparison to other people in Angola in violation of Article 19 of the Charter. By virtue of its independence, Nigeria remains an indivisible and indissoluble state. With regards to the ownership of land, Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978 vests all land in the Government of Nigeria to hold such Land in trust and administered for the common benefit of the people and would be responsible for allocation of land in 28