Apart from few exceptional cases, this Court grants access to individuals mainly in matters of human rights violations. As it stands now, the Plaintiff’s cause of action is in the nature of compelling through the hands of this court the 16th and 17th Defendants to perform their assigned treaty obligations of applying sanctions against the 1st Defendant. The reasoning of the Court is amply supported by the philosophy underpinning the drafting of both the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS and the Supplementary Act A/SP.13/02/12 on SANCTIONS AGAINST MEMBER STATES THAT FAIL TO HONOUR THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO ECOWAS. Under Article 14 of A/SP.13/02/12, itemized procedures for activation of sanctions against culpable States are provided. Unfortunately, none of the provided procedures affords the Plaintiff herein locus standi before this Honurable Court against the 16th & 17th Defendants either for their failure to activate or for compelling them to activate the application of sanctions against the 1st Defendant for the delict in complying with its treaty obligations. In the KARIM MEISSA WADE v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL mentioned (supra), the Court held as follows: “that it has jurisdiction to examine actions brought for failure by an ECOWAS Member State to honour its obligation; (…) on the other hand, that in the instant case, the Application brought by Mr. Karim Meïssa Wade, in the aspects relating to requests before the 19