CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 9 (4) OF THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOL AS WELL AS ARTICLE 14 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER, WHETHER THIS COURT IS COMPETENT TO ENTERTAIN THIS SUIT AS CONSTITUTED. 10. The human rights competence of this Court is specified under Article 9(4) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the Court which provides: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State”. In BAKARE SARRE V MALI (2011) CCJELR pg. 57, the court stressed that: “Once human rights violations which involves international or community obligations of a member state is alleged, it will exercise its jurisdiction over the case.” Similarly, In Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic of Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), this court held that: “Nevertheless, that simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case. Also, in Mamadou Tandja (2010) CCJELR pg. 109 & Bakare Sarre & 28 Ors v. Mali (2011) (CCJELR) pg. 57 the court held that: “Once a human rights violation which involves international or community obligations of a member state is alleged, it will exercise its jurisdiction over the case.” 11.The Applicants claim relates to the non-payment of their pension and other entitlements as well as other forms of compensation on properties in which they claimed to have acquired during the course of their active service to wit; redundancy allowance, repatriation allowance, insurance facility, October 2006 salary/house rent allowance, three (3) month’s salary in lieu of notice, full pension benefit as well as compensation for the untold hardship suffered since 2006, landed property upon which some of the zonal offices were situate, 250 buses allegedly purchased with pensioners monies, contributory housing funds deducted 6