Consequently, even if the 1st Defendant did not ratify the treaty, it is bound by its provisions upon signature, provided at least Nine member States (which may exclude the 1st Defendant have ratified it.) Accordingly the plea of the 1st Defendant that non –ratification obviates it from liability also fails, and the Court so holds. The Defendants or some of them have also contended that the present action falls within the provisions and intendment of Article 9(1) of the Supplementary Protocol of 2005 and therefore not maintainable by the Plaintiffs, not being a Community Institution. The said Article 9(1) (g) of the Supplementary Protocol vests the Court with the competence to adjudicate on any matter relating to an action for damages against a Community institution or an official of the Community for any act or omission in the exercise of their official functions. The ECOWAS Revised Treaty of 1993, and the Protocol A/P1/7/91/ of 1991 relating to the Community Court of Justice defines “Community” to mean the Economic Community of West African States, (ECOWAS) while Community Institutions are set out in Article 6 of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS 1993, None of the Defendants in this case falls within the ambit of a Community Institution or Community Official. The action is brought against the 1st and 2nd Defendants as Member States of ECOWAS as well as their officials. Article 9 (1) (g) of the 16