purview of the Protocol of ECOWAS on Free Movement of Persons, Residence and Establishment which Article 12 of the said Charter is all about and specifically on the right of free movement. For the above reasons the claims in the application no doubt fell within the said Article 9(4) of the (941 Protocol on the Court as amended. Article §(4) of the said Protocol provides that; “The court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State” 22. The ipse dixit evidence of the Plaintiff shows that the Plaintiffs were travelling from Nigeria to Tage when the alleged violations occurred. Prima facie, the facts stated therein in the application are acts of violation of human rights and same hinder on the Plaintiffs free movement as envisaged in the ECDWAS Protocol on free movement. See Falana v.FRN (supra), Article9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol, and Article 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Consequently, the applicants have shown that the subject matter falls under the jurisdiction of this Court. 23. On the third condition for the assumption of jurisdiction are the following issues raised by the Parties: e Retraspectivity of legislation; e Substitution of legislation; e Protocel A/F1/7/91 and Protocol A/SP/01/05 and their effect; ¢ Statute of Limitation under Article 9(3) of the 1991 Protocol as amended; 24, These issues fall under the ambit of the said third condition for the assumption of jurisdiction which ought to be satistied as stated earlier herein. The arguments of the Learned Counsel for the defendants were that the Supplementary Protocol that gave access to individuals on human rights violation was not made with retrospective effect, having been made well after the cause of action arose and when Protocol A/P1/07/9! was still in farce and applicable to the case. Learned Counsel to the Plaintiff submitted that any subsequent legislation, Act, Enactment must 10