the latter alleged the violation of the right to quality education, right to dignity amongst others guaranteed by Articles 1, 2, 17, 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights ruled thus: “It is a well-established principle of law that jurisdiction is a creature of statute. The statute that spells out the jurisdiction of this Court is the Supplementary Protocol on the Court of Justice, specifically Article 9 thereof. For this Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit as instituted by the Plaintiff, the subject-matter of the suit must fall within the confines of Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court. Under Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol, the Court clearly has jurisdiction to adjudicate on applications concerning the violation of human rights that occur in Member States of ECOWAS.” 48. In the instant case, the Applicants allege violation of their human rights to fair hearing and fair trial; equality before the law and non-discrimination; privacy and work as guaranteed by various provisions of the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR and the ACHPR all of which are treaties ratified and domesticated by the Respondent through provisions in the 1992 Constitution and other statutes. The Court in a plethora of case law has held that mere allegation of human rights violation is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In His Excellency Vice-President Alhaji Samuel Sam-Sumana v. Republic of Sierra Leone.-SUIT NO: ECW/CCJ/APP/38/16 and JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/17, the Court held that: “Indeed allegations of violations of human rights by an Applicant is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This is distinct from the issues of the veracity of the allegation(s).” The Court equally reaffirmed its consistently held case laws that: “The mere invocation of violation of human rights as falling within the sphere of competence of the Court is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the Court and that once human rights violation constituting international or community obligations of member states are brought against any member state, the Court declares its jurisdiction to examine such violation.” 16