34.It follows from the above that since the direct victim is the one personally affected, the requirement for mandate to act is obviously of no essence in an application under this circumstance. 35. While the direct victim is the party that is inherently qualified to bring action for the violation of his/her human rights, the door is however not shut against victims who are not able for recognised reasons to act for themselves as a representative action is admissible. 36.This waiver is premised on the fact that the Court recognises that Human rights are human centered, and the admissibility of an application is linked among other criteria to the status of the victim. This condition necessarily entails the applicant, acting on personal grounds as a result of a legally protected injured interest, or in a representative capacity. NOSA EHANIRE OSAGHAE & 3 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17 PAGE 18. 37. While it is established that an action can be maintained in a representative capacity by a party that is not a direct victim, an authorization or mandate to act is mandatory. In this wise the Court has held that in a representative action on behalf of a group that “The proof of authorization in the case of natural persons acting on behalf of a group cannot be dispensed with......for the Plaintiffs to access the court for and on behalf of the people of Niger Delta, they need the mandate upon which they act and when questioned must establish consent of the people or a justification for acting without such consent.” NOSA EHANIRE & 3 ORS V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, (2017) CCJELR. 12