b. Aside from cases of collective interests NGO’s cannot substitute the victims c. Non- victims of violation must receive prior authorization to act on behalf of the victims or their closest relatives. The Defendant submitted that the 1st Applicant have no cause of action because no wrong was done to it. She submitted that on the strength of SERAP’s case above that none of the parties to this application is a victim of human rights to violation and urged the Court to hold that the monetary and other claims of the Applicants disclose any cause of action and no locus standi to which they can be predicated upon and urged the Court to dismiss the application as lacking in merit. In conclusion, the Defendant urged the Court to hold as follows: i. That the activities of the BOKO HARAM sect constitute an armed uprising against the authority of the Defendant and a threat to lives, property and well-being of Nigerians. ii. That the Apo incident was an urgent and necessary operation carried out to pre-empt a planned attack on some location in Abuja iii. That it cannot be said that the Defendant failed to provide protection and exercise due diligence before, during and after the raid. iv. That the Defendant provided reasonably adequate treatment to victims of the raid of the uncompleted building at Apo Zone E. v. That the Defendant, promptly took steps through the Police and Civil Defence to convey the dead and the wounded to the hospital and should be commended. vi. That the Defendant did not in any way breach or violate the fundamental human rights of the victims of the raid on 20 th September, 2013 or of the Applicants. In Particular, their right to life, dignity of the human person guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 33