“Restrictive rules about standing are in general inimical to a healthy system of growth of administrative law, if a Plaintiff with a good cause is turned away merely because he is not sufficiently affected personally, that could mean that “some government agency is left free to violate the law. Such a situation would be extremely unhealthy and contrary to the public interest. Litigants are unlikely to spend their time and money unless they have some real interest at stake and in some cases where they wish to sue merely out of public spirit, to discourage them and thwart their good intentions would be most frustrating and completely demoralizing”. The activities of the Government and its agencies including law enforcement agents that violate the rights of individuals, especially the right to life is a matter in which the public can legitimately be interested, as in this case. The 1st Plaintiff is not a busybody as the Defendants would want this Court to believe and we so hold. This Court is not devoid of its jurisprudence in the area of locus standi. In SERAP Vs. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & UBEC (2010) CCJ L R P.119, this Court held the view that taking into account the need to reinforce access to justice for the protection of human rights, an NGO duly constituted can sue an action on behalf of victims of abuse and all they need to show is that there is a public right worthy of protection. Similarly, in SERAP Vs. PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 8 ORS (2010) CCJ LR 231 at 248, this Court observed and rightly too that; “There is a large consensus in international law that when the issue at stake is the violation of rights of entire communities as in the case to damage to the environment, access to justice should be facilitated” In this regard, where the right violated as in this case, the right to life of community of persons who are deceased, as in this case, access to justice should be facilitated because the outcome is very likely to impact positively on the activities of law enforcement agents who sometimes act overzealously. Based on the foregoing, it is the considered view of this Court that the 1st Applicant can institute and prosecute the present action. This position is reinforced by the fact that the 2nd to 12th Applicants are direct victims of the alleged violation of 17