[sic] of the Supplementary Protocol on the court, no. A/SP./1/01/05 that could be ordered for having failed to perform official act. 25. Another order sought by the Applicant was that the government of Nigeria should recognize school teachers' trade union freedoms, and to solicit the views of teachers throughout the process of educational planning and policy-making. There is no evidence in support of this. Besides, this is not a human rights issue, whether the government will include another organization in the planning and execution of its programmes. Be that as it may, the Act which established the second defendant, which they annexed to their document, shows that the teachers are not ignored as the applicant wants to imply from the order sought. The Nigeria Union of Teachers, as well as the National Parents/Teachers Association of Nigeria, and the National Teachers Institute are all represented on the board of the second defendant. Decision 26. In the light of the foregoing analysis of the facts, the Court is able to decide as follows: Relief 1. The defendants do not contest the fact that every Nigerian child is entitled to free and compulsory basic education. What they earlier on said was that the right to education was not justiciable in Nigeria, but the court in its earlier ruling of 27th October 2009 in this case, decided it was justiciable under the ACHPR. 27. Relief 2. As stated already, the report provides only prima facie and not conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, and there is no judicial pronouncement on these findings. Also the alleged suspects are not parties before us in this action, so this court is unable to make any declaration of illegality or unconstitutionality in this matter. 28. Relief 3. The applicant is saying that following the diversion of funds, there is insufficient money available to the basic education sector. We have earlier referred to the fact that embezzlement or theft of part of the funds allocated to the basic education sector will have a negative impact; this is normal since shortage of funds will disable the sector from performing as envisaged by those who approved the budget. Thus, whilst steps are being taken to recover the funds or prosecute the suspects, as the case may be, it is in order that the first defendant should take the necessary steps to provide the money to cover the shortfall to ensure a smooth implementation of the education programme, lest a section of the people should be denied a right to education. 29. Relief 4. The court cannot grant this order for the arrest and prosecution of the alleged suspects for reasons already explained. 30. Reliefs 5 and 6. For lack of evidence these orders are refused. 31. In conclusion, subject to reliefs 1 and 3 which the court grants in terms as stated above, the court rejects all the other reliefs and orders sought. 32. Costs. Since the matter succeeds in part the parties shall bear their own costs. This decision has been read in open court in Abuja this 30th day of November 2010 in the presence of Hon. Justice Hansine N. Donli...................Presiding Hon. Justice Anthony A. Benin...................Member Hon. Justice Soumana D. Sidibe...................Member Assisted by Mr. Tony Anene-Maidoh...................Chief Registrar 5