Thus, having produced the certificate of incorporation in prove of its status, the Court will presume in the absence of any contrary evidence that the certificate is regular and that the 1st Applicant is a legal entity with capacity to sue and be sued. Consequently, the objection of the Defendant in this regard cannot be sustained. The Defendant further contends that the 1st Applicant has no locus standi to institute this action. The term "Locus Standi” denotes the interest to institute proceedings in a Court of law or to be heard in a given cause. In other words, the strict application of locus standi denotes that a Plaintiff wishing to sue must have sufficient interest in the subject matter in order to have a standing to litigate same. There is however need to stress here that the position in law globally has moved beyond insistence on the strict rule of standing in human rights violation cases. This Court has adopted a more flexible approach to standing in order to allow persons not directly affected by the alleged violation to have access to Court to seek justice of behalf of the actual victim. See SERAP V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIAN & 4 ORS 2014 ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14 Unreported. In SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ACTION CENTRE (SERAC) AND ANOTHER V. NIGERIA (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001) the African Commission commended the role of NGOs and the "usefulness of action popularis, which is wisely allowed under African Charter". 16