13. The Federal Republic of Nigeria has infringed upon his right to fair hearing, which is a human right guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, on one hand, and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the other hand; and finally, turn was by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. According to the lawyer, this violation has been committed by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Tribunal, by refusing to grant to the Applicant the right to fair hearing in the Case Concerning Tribunal, Dr. C. C. Okeke v. Independent National Electoral Commission and Others, No.EPT/AN/NA/6/2003; 14. The lawyer for the Applicant draws attention to the provisions set out in Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol, to the effect that "The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State"; as well as to Article 10 (d) which provides that "Access to the Court is open to ... individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights;..."; as well as to provisions contained in Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in Article 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. To buttress the arguments, the Applicant is asking the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice to: 1. Declare null and void, the procedures and the Judgment delivered by the Elections Tribunal and by the Court of Appeal Court of Nigeria; 2. Enjoin the National Electoral Commission not to invalidate his election as a Member of the National Assembly of Nigeria; 3. Enjoin the National Assembly not to proceed to replace him with another person. From all the foregoing, the Applicant is requesting the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice to consider the various instances of violation, and to grant him relief. 15. In reply to the arguments of the Applicant, the counsel to the Defendant, to fair Mr. Akande Ayodeji Esq., raised a Preliminary Objection, describing the Application as misconceived. He cited Articles 9 and 10 of the Supplementary Protocol and made it known that the case in point is an electoral dispute, with another Application still pending before the High Court of Nigeria. The lawyer to the Federal Republic of Nigeria thus raises the issue of incompetence of the application on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Court. 16. The lawyer to the Intervener, Mr. Jude Okeke, observed that the Applicant, Jerry Ugokwe took part in all the proceedings of the Tribunal, and of the Court of Appeal; that he was never deprived of a fair hearing; that the Tribunal of the National Assembly and of the House of Representatives is a legal jurisdictional institution; he relied on the Case Concerning Al Hajl Aminu Mohammed Dan Bauchi v. Al Haji Usman Matori, No. FHC/J/C5/68/2004. Equally cited by the Intervener to show the bad faith; the Intervener asserts that the suit filed by the Applicant is vexatious, because it is made with the intention of obstructing his swearing in, whereas he, the Intervener, is the true winner of the election, as confirmed b the Court of Appeal in Nigeria responsible for resolving electoral disputes. That in this regard, the Community Court of Justice is without jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case. The Intervener therefore requested to be joined to the proceeding as Intervener -Defendant, and cited to support his Application for Joinder, Article 10(c) and (d) of the Supplementary Protocol which provides as follows: "(c) Individuals and corporate bodies in proceedings for the determination of the legality of an act or inaction of a Community official which violates the rights of the individuals or corporate bodies; d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i) not be anonymous; nor 3