State which hitherto would have represented him. Article 9 (3) being unambiguous and requires that the Court gives effect to the plain words or terms of the fine Protocol, irrespective of the fact that it failed to meet the circumstances of the Applicant's case. 60. Finally, every provision of the Community law must be placed in its context and applied or interpreted in the light of the provisions of Community law as a whole, regard being had to the objectives thereof on and to its state of evolution at the date on which the provision in question is to be applied. 61. In the light of all those considerations, the answer to the question submitted to the Court must be that the first paragraph of Article 9(3) of the Protocol is to be applied as meaning that this Court is competent to hear disputes instituted by a Member State on behalf of its nationals against another Member State or institution of the Community and not otherwise, as in the case. 62. By the examination of the said Protocol, the Applicant cannot bring proceedings other than as provided in Article 9(3) of the Protocol. This view proves the point that the Applicant in this case cannot bring the proceedings against his Country or Member State which by law is saddled with the responsibility of instituting proceedings on his behalf. 63. Even though the said Article 9 (3) is not in pari material with Article 34 × 1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court. 2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with its Rules, may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it, and shall receive such information presented by such organizations on their own initiative. 3. Whenever the construction of the constituent instrument of a public international organization or of an international convention adopted thereunder is in question in a case before the Court, the Registrar shall so notify the public international organization concerned and shall communicate to it copies of all the written proceedings. of the International Court of Justice Statute, the clear intendment excludes persons not mentioned therein. 64. The Court in answer to the application for striking out the proceedings instituted by the Applicant on October 10, 2003 must grant same. In the circumstance, the Preliminary Objection is upheld based on the consideration above. 65. After examining the arguments of both Learned Counsel and the authorities regarding the issue, the Court states that the issue before it is that of competence to adjudicate on the proceedings institute by the Applicant against the Respondent and not on Locus standi per se, which the Applicant's Counsel contended vigorously before us. 66. In the final analysis, the opposition to the Preliminary Objection cannot stand. Consequently, the proceedings instituted by Applicant must fail. Costs 67. By Article 66 of the Rules of the Court, an order may be made regarding the award of costs. The Court hereby exercises discretion not to make an order as to cost. Costs shall be borne by the parties. The Operative Part of the Judgment The Court (First Chambers) Declaration and Decree 68. Consequently the substantive proceedings instituted by the Applicant, Afolabi against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Respondent, as set hereunder have failed in their entirety; a) The application wherein the Applicant sought the declaration that the unilateral closure by the Federal Republic of Nigeria of her border with Benin Republic from the 9th to 15th of August 2003 is unlawful and a breach of Article 3(2) (d) (iii) and Article 4 (g) of the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) dated 24 July, 1993, and to which Nigeria is a the signatory; and b) A declaration that the closure by the Federal Republic of Nigeria of her border with Benin Republic from the 9th to 15th of August 2003, is a violation of the Plaintiffs rights to freedom of movement of his persons and goods, rights of egress and ingress as guaranteed tee by the Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African d States 1993, the Protocol on the free movement of persons and goods and Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' adopted by the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 1990. 7