1. Whether or not the Application as filed by the applicants stated a cause of action to attract the competence and consideration by this court? 2. Whether or not the applicants failed to exhaust local remedies for the redress of allege wrong complaint of and therefore this court is impotent to enquire into this matter? 3. Whether or not the injuries complaint of by the applicants constitutes a violation by the Federal Government of its obligations as is enshrine in the ECOWAS Protocol and other human right instruments that were ratified by the said Government? 4. Should it be the finding of this court that the Federal Government was in breach of its international obligations as refer to above, is this court competent, and is there evidence sufficient in law for this court, to grant the reliefs sought by the applicants? 6.0. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES These issues shall be enquired into in the order in which they are presented. 6.1. Whether or not the Application as filed by the applicants stated a cause of action sufficient to attract the competence and consideration of this court? 6.1.1. It is the position of the defendant that the Application as filed by the applicant failed to disclose any action against the defendant. The defense, relying on the case Adekeya vs. F. H. A. (2008), argued that the failure of the applicants to annexed any documents relied upon in support of the Application is “evident that the law did not give unfettered rights for parties to be sued indiscriminately without a cause of action against parties they are suing”. The defendant furthered that “the plaintiffs did not disclosed the necessary facts to substantiate their plea capable of granting them cause to seek for the reliefs they are praying for before this Honourable Court. 6.1.2. The defendant further averred that the arrest and incarceration of the applicants was the outcome of a valid judgment from a competent tribunal from which the applicants are yet to appeal to the proper judicial forum. Therefore, according to the defendant, this action is nothing more than a ploy by the applicants to resurrect a matter that has already been concluded. 6.1.3. The defendant further alleged that the claims by the applicants do not fall within the ambit of fundamental human right. That while the Federal Page | 8