being close members of the alleged victims the court find that Applicant 4&5 have locus stand to bring this action in a representative capacity. 70. Applicants 2, 3 & 6 With respect to Applicants 2, 3&6 apart from been named as such in the originating application, they did not testify to any material fact nor swear to any witness statement on oath to enable a determination of their status as a victim. Since there is no evidence that they have suffered either direct or indirect loss to qualify them as victims, the court finds that Applicant 2,3&6 cannot maintain an action for themselves. 71. With regards to their capacity to sue on behalf of other victims of the Southern Kaduna State crisis, they are covered under the principles of action popularis where spirited individuals are allowed to bring an action on behalf of a group for public wrong. That the killings and destruction as evidenced in this case is a public wrong is not in dispute. This issue was very well canvassed by this Court in the case of REV. FR .SOLOMON MFA & 11 ORS V. FEDERALL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/19 where the Court held at Paragraph 59 that: “Even though the Court held that the Applicants have failed to maintain this action in their personal capacity, the law recognizes the right of individuals and corporate bodies who are not victims to bring an action in a representative capacity under the principle of Actio Popularis. The Court under this situation will allow NGO and public spirited individuals to institute actions on behalf of group of victims usually from a community or class of people based on common public interest to claim for the violation of their human rights, because this group may not have the knowledge and the financial capacity to maintain legal action of such magnitude which affects the general public interest. Public interest issues are generally for the welfare and wellbeing of every individual in a society.” 72. Having reviewed the arguments of both parties on the preliminary objection of the Respondent as it pertains to the locus standi of the Applicants, the Court holds as follows: - The 1St Applicant being a lawfully recognized NGO cannot sue on its behalf but has the locus standi to bring this action on behalf of the Muslim members of the southern Kaduna crisis.- The 4th and 5th Applicants having alleged loss of close family members are deemed victims and have the locus standi to maintain this action on their behalf but not on behalf of other victims. 19