44.It must be emphasized that the fundamentals of a waiver of mandate to act in a representative action by an NGO is the premised on the fact that same is instituted for public interest. In other words the overriding interest of the NGO must be the welfare of the general public which it seeks to protect. A quest for personal gain by the representing party therefore negates any such action. 45.Accordingly, whilst NGOs can sue in a representative capacity for the violation of human rights of others it cannot maintain an action as a victim of Human Rights violation. The Court has reiterated that “…there is a clear distinction between these two classes of cases, one in which the corporate body sues as the victim and the other in which it sues on behalf of the victim, the victim here being identified as a human being. In the former situation the corporate body has no locus or capacity to sue, but in the latter situation, it has.” THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE MIYETTI ALLAH KAUTAL HORE SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSOCIATION V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2011) ECW/CCJ/RUL/11/12 (2012) CCJELR, PAGE 182, PARAGRAPH 28. 46.The summary of the preceding analysis is that a direct victim who has suffered personal and direct loss can bring an action for the violation of his/her human rights obviously without a mandate. On the other hand, an indirect victim who has not suffered directly is equally recognized to bring an action in a representative capacity on behalf of the direct victim. A mandate is waived where as in the case of death of the direct victim it is impossible or impracticable to obtain a mandate but a proof of affiliation to the victim must be established. Similarly, a legally recognized organization 15