17. The defendants are alleged to have contributed to the denial of education to a lot of Nigerians by failure to seriously address all allegations of corruption at the highest levels of government and the levels of impunity that facilitate corruption in Nigeria. This situation has contributed to the denial of the right of the peoples to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, which is the backbone to the enjoyment of the right to education and other economic and social rights. 18. To begin with, the ICPC report is the product of investigations into the affairs of the basic education sector. And in law such investigative report is not conclusive of the facts stated therein, nonetheless they provide prima facie evidence of the facts investigated. If the report finds that there is evidence of corruption, it behoves the appropriate authority to act further on it, and secure a judicial verdict. It is only then that a person investigated can be said to be guilty of the allegations or findings of corruption contained in the report. And the fact that the report is not conclusive of the facts stated therein explains the use of such words and expressions as "allegedly", "reportedly", "according to reports", in the initiating application. 19. And coming to the crux of the matter, granting that the ICPC report has made conclusive findings of corruption that per se will not amount to a denial of the right of education. Admittedly, embezzling, stealing or even mismanagement of funds meant for the education sector will have a negative impact on education since it reduces the amount of money made available to provide education to the people. Yet it does not amount to a denial of the right to education, without more. The reason is not far to seek. The Federal Government of Nigeria has established institutions, including the 2nd defendant to lake care of the basic education needs of the people of Nigeria. It has allocated funds to these institutions to carry out their mandate. We believe these are all geared towards fulfilling the right ID education. Some officers charged with the duty of implementing the education mandate, are said to have misused, misapplied, embezzled or even stolen part of the funds. The Federal Government and the 2nd defendant are said to have failed to act against such persons and for that reason, they are said to have denied the right of the peoples of Nigeria to education. There must be a clear linkage between the acts of corruption and a denial of the right to education. In a vast country like Nigeria, with her massive resources, one can hardly say that an isolated act of corruption contained in a report will have such devastating consequence as a denial of the right to education, even though as earlier pointed out it has a negative impact on education. 20. The applicant appreciated this last point and so went on to argue that "this is not an isolated case but an illustration of high level corruption and theft of funds meant for primary education in Nigeria." This Court cannot accept such sweeping conclusion. It is a serious indictment on authorities of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which calls for strict proof, being a criminal matter. In the absence of such proof, the Court will reject any suggestion of high level corruption in the educational sector which has resulted in a denial of the right to education. 21. The Court takes note that in the course of implementing policies, especially financial policies, if funds are stolen or embezzled or misapplied, it behoves the matter to be dealt with internally, that is at the domestic level. This Court will only hold a State accountable if it denies the right to education to its people. Funds stolen by officers charged with the responsibility of providing basic education to the people should be treated as crime, pure and simple or the culprits may be dealt with in accordance with the applicable civil laws of the country to recover the funds. Unless this is done, every case of theft or embezzlement of public funds will be treated as a denial of human rights of the people in respect of the project for which the funds were allocated. That is not the object of human rights violation in this Court where every breach or violation must be specifically alleged and proved by evidence. 22. Indeed the ICPC report itself did not recommend prosecution in the first place. Paragraph (viii) of its recommendations is pertinent and germane to the ongoing discussion, and it reads: "All illegal and unauthorized payments including transfers, diversion, misapplied funds or fictitious claims discovered during the course of investigation should be refunded to the government, failure to accede to this request will lead to criminal prosecution of those involved or the Agency". 23. The Court notes that there is no time frame set in the report for the funds to be recovered. The applicant has jumped the first step in the implementation of the report and is calling for prosecution which is the last resort. 24. Be that as it may, even if the report had recommended prosecution, this Court will not have the power to order the defendants to arrest and prosecute anybody to recover state money. It is the duty of the Attorney-General to decide on what matter or who to prosecute, and that power is entirely his to exercise. And the Attorney-General is not a community official, within the meaning of Article 10(e) × Access to the Court. e) Staff of any Community institution, after the Staff Member has exhausted all appeal processes available to the officer under the ECOWAS Staff Rules and Regulations; 4