2. The Court shall also be competent to deal with disputes referred to it, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Treaty, by Member States or the Authority, when such disputes arise between the Member States or between one or more Member States and the institutions of the Community on the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Treaty. 3. A Member State may, on behalf of its nationals, institute proceedings against another Member State or Institution of the Community, relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Treaty, after attempts to settle the dispute amicably have failed. 4. The Court shall have any power conferred upon it, specifically by the provisions of this Protocol." 7. With the requirements boldly stated in Article 9 of the said Protocol the Applicant, Mr. Olajide Afolabi, being aggrieved instituted this action, claiming the relief stated hereunder: (a) Declaration that the unilateral closure by the Federal Republic of Nigeria of her border with Benin Republic from 9th to 15th of August, 2003, is unlawful and a breach of Article 3(2)(d)(iii) and Article 4 (g) of the Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) dated 24th July, 1993, and to which Nigeria is a signatory. (b) A Declaration that closure by the Federal Republic of Nigeria of her border with Benin Republic from the 9th to 15th of August, 2003, is a violation of the Plaintiff's Right to Freedom of movement of his person and goods, Rights of egress and ingress as guaranteed by the Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States, 1993, the Protocol on the Free Movement of Persons and Goods and Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights adopted by the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 1990. (c) A Mandatory Order of injunction restraining the Federal Republic of Nigeria from further closure of her border with Benin Republic. (d) Costs of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million) Naira against the Applicant/ Defendant, the Federal Republic of Nigeria" Preliminary Objection and Submission of Counsel 8. The Respondent upon the receipt of the claim so filed against it, by the Applicant/Plaintiff, filed a Preliminary Objection dated November 27, 2003 and stated the terms of the objection thus: "An order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction. And such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance" 9. In support of the Preliminary Objection, are documents marked A, and C, amplifying the terms in their written submission which brought out more explicitly the concerns of the Applicant and their positions regarding the propriety of the suit in question. He emphasized on the strict application of Article 9 (3) of the Protocol that gives the Court the competence to adjudicate upon the matter. 10. The Learned Counsel to the Respondent Mr. J. K. Ehicheoya, submitted in the Reply to the written submission of the Respondent that their objection was not on locus standi but the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit filed by Olajide Afolabi, the Applicant. 11. He reiterated that the Applicant has no right of direct access to this Court. He further submitted that the right of access is not the same as right or interest in the subject matter in dispute and lack of access to Court is not only in relation to lack of locus standi. He relied on Faloye v. Omoseni (2001) 9 NWLR (PT717) 190; Lawal v. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR PT (711) 88. 12. He further contended that under Article 9 of the Protocol, the only instance a national will have access to the Court is when his Country brings action on his behalf. He sealed his argument when he punctuated the argument of the Respondents submission by stating that no specific provision of the Protocol vested the Court with powers to adjudicate in respect of suits filed by nationals or individuals except as provided by Article 9 of the Protocol. 13. On the point relating to inherent jurisdiction, he emphasized that jurisdiction is statutory and specifically conferred. He submitted that the Court cannot under inherent jurisdiction exercise powers not otherwise expressly stated in the Treaty or the Protocol. He urged the Court to strike out the suit for want of 2