- 30 can come to this Court under is its human rights mandate; thus, the question is, what human rights does the 1st Plaintiff possess for and which the violation thereof would be cognizable before this Court? In our view, there is none; and as such, this case is rendered inadmissible as to the 1st Plaintiff. 8.1.26. This leaves only the 2nd Plaintiff before the Court as a party plaintiff. Our task now is to see what human rights of the 2 nd Plaintiff were violated by the Defendants. The Plaintiff states his own case as him being intimidated by the actions of the Defendants in carrying out a fund-raising program where the Defendants raised over 21.27 Billion Naira, and this act of raising such huge amount constitutes a violation of his human right to equality before the law. First of all, this is a question of fact to be established, and if so established, then, the determination made as to whether the raising of funds by one political party violates the human rights of other political players in the electioneering process. But before getting to this fact-finding determination, the Defendants have raised the legal hurdle of lack of jurisdiction to hear the case, which enjoins this Court to stop and determine the legal issue first and if answered in the direction of the Plaintiff, then go into the factual aspect. 8.1.27. The Court takes note that the Plaintiff has based his suit on violations of his right to vie for political office under provisions of the Nigerian Electoral Laws. This Court has held that it will not interfere with matters of enforcement of domestic laws of member States. Thus the Court “declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality or legality of acts which come under the domestic norms and laws of the authorities of Member States (vis-à-vis violation of provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as raised by the Plaintiffs) and that the Plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice.” “The Court also declared the Application filed against Mamadou Tandja, a natural person, as inadmissible, and the claims brought by the Plaintiffs, as frivolous.” Center for Democracy and Development and Center for Defense of Human Rights and Democracy, Plaintiffs, vs. Mamadou Tandja and the Republic of Niger, Defendants, supra. 8.1.28. Thus, in answering issue number one, the 4th Defendant relied on Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol of (2005) of ECOWAS as amended by Protocol A/SP.1/01/15. Also, the case: Peter David vs. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue, 2010 CCJELR 213, and the Court concurs with the 4th Defendant.