24. However, on the requirement of the exhaustion of local remedies in accordance with Article 56.5, the Complainant is requesting the Commission to invoke the exception rule. While admitting that local remedies have not been attempted, the Complainant explains that such a course would have been futile for three reasons. 25. Firstly, that there is no local recourse readily available to SERAP because of the strict interpretation of the principle oflocus standi in Nigeria, and that exhaustion of local remedies is inapplicable where it is impractical to seize the domestic courts due to the large number of potential plaintiffs (Nigerian students amounting over 5 millions at the primary, secondary and university levels) and potentially over-burdening the courts resulting in unduly prolonged processes. 26. Secondly, that there is no adequate or effective domestic remedies to address the violations alleged in this complaint since Nigerian courts do not generally regard economic and social rights as legally enforceable human rights. Furthermore, that there is no equivalent of the provisions of Articles 17 and 21 of the African Charter relating to the right to education and the right of people not to be disposed of their wealth and natural resources under Nigeria’s Constitution or legislation. For this reason therefore, Nigerian courts will not be easily disposed to hear the matter. 27. Thirdly, that the Nigerian judiciary process is weak and cases are unduly prolonged, making recourse to them ineffective. Submissions by the Respondent State 28. On its part, the Respondent State submits that in Nigeria, social and economic rights are not justiciable under the Constitution as they fall under what may be termed the preamble of the Constitution, mapping objectives rather than enforcing and sanctioning compliance thereof. Hence there is no legal right that can give rise to rights of action. 29. The respondent state further argues that, this notwithstanding, the courts in Nigeria have creatively made socio-economic rights justiciable where it can be shown that a denial of these principles are likely to result in a denial of fundamental human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The state added that the domestication of the African Charter by virtue of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Chapter 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990) empowers the Nigerian courts to enforce or give remedies under the provision of the African Charter. Furthermore, that the Constitution of Nigeria contains provisions on socio-economic rights which, even though non-justiciable, states can be held accountable by the courts if they disregard them. 30. The state also argues that even though socio-economic rights are not justiciable, the government has enunciated some policies and created some institutions to address the issue, including the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) and the State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS). The institutions and programmes include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) as well as the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency (SMEDAN) respectively. It further avers that these measures are all geared towards enhancing the peoples’ economic and social welfare generally. 31. The Respondent State further submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible because: • • • • The complaint does not disclose a breach of any municipal law within the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the breach of any international treaties or conventions to which Nigeria is a party; The factual basis for the communication is an allegation of criminal conduct which is currently the subject of an on-going criminal trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja; The conduct of a few officials does not, in law and in fact, amount to the abdication by Nigeria of her sovereign obligations to her citizens properly covered by any municipal law or international conventions or treaties to which Nigeria is a signatory; All the officers named by the Complainant were forced to resign from their positions in the National Assembly and have since been defending the prosecution case filed against them;