In the instant case, the 1st Plaintiff has established that it is a registered NGO authorized by its constitution to engage in public interest litigation. Similarly on the face of the Application, it is described as suing “for and on behalf of families of the persons shot dead by the officers and men of the 2 nd and 3rd Defendants. These victims were also enumerated on the face of the Application. The eight victims enumerated are deceased and cannot maintain this action. The burden of proving lack of authority on the part of the 1st Applicant to institute this action on behalf of the deceased victims rests on the Defendants. It is not sufficient merely to raise lack of authority without more. In this regard the principles in SERAP’s case supports this suit as it can be regarded as one of the exceptions to the rule that only victims of human rights violation can sue. In ADESANYA VS. PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA, (1981) 1 A11 NLR 1 at 20 the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Per Fatayi- Williams CJN, rightly observed as follows: “I take significant cognizance of the fact that Nigeria is a developing Country with multiethnic society and a written Federal constitution where rumor- mongering is the pasttime of the market places and construction sites.to deny member of such a society who is aware or behaves or is led to believe that there has been an infraction of any provisions of our constitution, or that any law passed by any of our legislative houses,…… is unconstitutional, access to a Court of law to hear his grievances on the flimsy excuse of lack of insufficient interest is to provide a ready recipe for organized disenchantment with the judicial process”. In the Nigerian context, it is better to allow a party to go to Court and to be heard than to refuse him access to our Courts. Non –access to my mind, will stimulate the free for all in the media as to which law is constitutional and which law is not. In any case our Courts have inherent powers to deal with vexations litigations and frivolous claims. Although this dictum is related to the Nigerian society, it is applicable mutatis mutandis to ECOWAS States to whom the jurisdiction of this Court applies. More pointedly, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMAGER UNION VS.UNION OF INDIA (1981) A I R (S C) 344 succinctly captured the modern Jurisprudence on locus standi as follows: 16