39. It is thus evident that the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot invoke the non justiciability or enforceability of ICESCR as a mean for shirking its responsibility in ensuring protection and guarantee for its citizens within the framework of commitments it has made vis-a-vis the Economic Community of West African States and the Charter. 40. The Court adjudges that it has jurisdiction to examine matters in which applicants invoke ICCPR and ICESCR. ii) That the Plaintiff lacks locus standi Argument advanced by the Federal Republic of Nigeria 41. The Federal because Republic its Application of Nigeria was maintained that SERAP filed without the has no /ocus standi prior information, accord and interest of the People of Niger Delta, and that SERAP acts in its own name, with no proof that it is acting on behalf of the people of Niger Delta. Argument advanced by the Plaintiff 42. The Plaintiff countered this plea-in-law by citing delivered by the Court on 10 December Ruling N°ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 2010 on the preliminary objections raised by the oil companies who were summoned to appear in court. Analysis of the Court 43. The Court recalls that this issue has already been examined in the above-cited ruling among the numerous preliminary objections raised by the oil companies and it concluded that the NGO known as SERAP has locus satndi in the instant case (see §62 of the Ruling). 44. However, the Court notes that the Federal Republic of Nigeria did not take part in the proceedings relating to the said objections. But, by virtue of the relative effect of the decisions of the Court, the 10 December 2010 decision affect only the parties who decision cannot pleaded their cases during that hearing. The authority of that therefore be applied to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 12|Page