targeted at any Political Party. Therefore, assuming jurisdiction amounts to examining the internal laws of the Defendant. In CDD V. MAMADOU TANDJA & ANOR, (2011) CCJELR, the Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality or legality of acts which come under the domestic norm and laws of authorities of member States (vis-à-vis) violation of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights as raised by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, this Court has held that there is no provision whether general or specific, that gives it powers to adjudicate on electoral issues which ordinarily is subject to the jurisdiction of National Courts. See HON. DR JERRY UGOKWE V. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND 1 OR (2004-2009) CCJELR. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the alleged amendment was discriminatory in nature, or targeted at their party, neither have they led evidence to establish that the amendment directly prevents them from choosing a representative of their choice in line with the provisions of Article 13 (1) of the African Charter. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their allegation that the Defendant diverted government funds to the Ruling Party. The facts presented by the Plaintiffs have not indicated any human right violation within the context of the African Charter and other International Human Right Treaties. The Plaintiffs’ Application anchors on the amendment of the Electoral Act which they allege violates their rights to participate in the upcoming elections. 13