and armed uprising against authority or operations of government (underlying theirs). The Defendant argued that the activities of the BOKO HARAM sect in her territory constitutes an act of insurrection, and as such the right to life as guaranteed in the Defendant’s Constitution is not absolute but subject to the suppression of insurrection. o. That the Defendant is committed to respecting the right to life, freedom of movement, freedom of association, right to human dignity, right to integrity and right to the security of Nigerians. That the Defendant is also committed to ensuring the protection of human rights contained in all international human rights instruments. p. Furthermore, that the National Assembly of the Defendant set up the Committee to investigate the circumstances leading to the death and injury of the Applicants and others as contained in the Senate Committee Report on the Investigation on alleged Extra- Judicial Killing in Apo Abuja, which report commended the Defendant in many respects. q. That the Defendant is taking steps to strengthen Security to ensure the protection of lives and property of its citizens; and that the Defendants took the injured for treatment on its own expense. Accordingly, to the Defendant, these acts are “responsive and noble acts expected of a democratic Government” and urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Defendant and refuse the reliefs sought by the Applicants. With regard to issue No2, i.e. whether in the circumstances of this case, the applicant has a cause of action and locus standi to institute this suit, the Defendant submitted as follows: i. That a cause of action is a bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving the Plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for the relief being sought. The factual situation must be recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of enforcement. Where an 31