- 29 8.1.20. Further, as stated in respect of other Defendants, the Plaintiffs have not said
that they reported any violation of their human rights to the 5 th Defendant and the
said 5th Defendant, within the context of its mandate, failed, refused and or neglected
to investigate Plaintiffs’ complaint, and if Plaintiffs did not report such conduct,
what prevented them from doing so.
8.1.21. The other important point to raise is that the 5th Defendant is a functionary of
the government and not a member of ECOWAS, and hence not subject to the
jurisdiction of the Community Court of Justice. Accordingly, and as with other
Defendants, this case is inadmissible as to the 5th Defendant and is hereby dismissed.
8.1.22. Finally, we come to the 6th Defendant: Inspector General of Police – As
to the 6th Defendant, the Plaintiffs state in their complaint that:
“The law requires the 1st Defendant member state, the 2nd, 5th
and 6th Defendants to investigate and inquire into the 3rd and
4th Defendants violation and desecration of the laws and
prosecute and convict them appropriately in accordance with the
laws.” See count 13 of the complaint.
8.1.23. The only thing the Plaintiffs did here is to state who the 6 th Defendant is and
what it or he is supposed to do. The Plaintiffs have not said that they reported any
criminality to the Police for which the Police failed, refused and or neglected to
investigate; the Plaintiffs also did not say what (if any) prevented them from
reporting such misconducts to the Police. Nothing specific is stated as to the conduct
of the Police for which the Police have been sued in this Court.
8.1.24. More importantly, the Police are a state entity or organ and not a Member
State of ECOWAS, and hence not amenable to the Community Court of Justice. This
case is thus rendered inadmissible and is hereby accordingly dismissed as to the 6th
Defendant.
COMPETENCY OF PLAINTIFFS TO BRING SUIT
8.1.25. Another aspect of the competency of this Court to hear this case relates to the
Plaintiffs ability to bring this suit. We note that the 1st Plaintiff is a political party
engaging in local political activities in Nigeria. Under the jurisprudence, this Court
lacks the authority to hear matters brought by organizations such as political parties.
The only aspect of the competency of this Court an individual applicant