c. The next issue that is for determination is whether the 2nd Defendant ought to be a party to this. One of the grounds of objection by the 2nd Defendant is that “The application in the nature of this suit ought to be made or instituted against the 1st Defendant (The Federal Government of Nigeria) alone. Her main plank of complaint is that this type of suit should have been instituted against the 1st Defendant, a State as reiterated by this Court in ALIMU AKEEM VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA JUDGEMENT N° ECW/CCJ/APP/105/11. They concluded that once an action is for human rights violation, the application shall be made against the State, irrespective of the organ of State which committed the alleged infraction”. Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol ( A/SP.1/01/05) amending protocol (A/P1/7/91) relating to the Community Court of Justice upon with the human rights jurisdiction of this Court is predicated provides that the Court shall “…. Have jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member States”. The Court has emphasized in a long line of cases, a few of which will be referred to here that in cases alleging violation of human rights brought before it, the appropriate Defendant is a Member State of the Economic Community of West African States. Accordingly, neither individuals, agents nor organs of a Member State can be sued as Defendants before this Court for human rights violation. In its decision in suit N° ECW/CCJ/APP/04/09, PETER DAVID VS. AMBASSADOR RALPH UWECHUE, this Court held that in dispute between individual on alleged violation of human rights, the natural and proper venue before which the case may be pleaded is the domestic Court of State party where the violation occurred. It is only when at the national level that there is no appropriate and effective forum for seeking redress against individuals that the victim of such offences may bring an action before the international Court, against the signatory State for its failure to ensure the protection and respect for the rights allegedly violated. See also the decision in CDD Vs. MAMADOU TANDJA (2011) CCJ L R 103 especially at 115-116. This Court has consistently maintained the position and have no reason to deviate from it. 20