generally for the welfare and wellbeing of every individual in a society. In SERAP V. FRN (2010) CCJELR, PG. 196, PARA 32, & 34 the Court stated that: “The doctrine of actio popularis was developed under Roman law in order to allow any citizen to challenge a breach of a public right in Court. This doctrine developed as a way of ensuring that the restrictive approach to the issue of standing would not prevent public spirited individuals from challenging a breach of a public right in Court. In public interest litigation, the Plaintiff need not show that he has suffered any personal injury or has a special interest that needs to be protected to have standing. Plaintiff must establish that there is a public right which is worthy of protection which has been allegedly breached and that the matter in question is justiciable.” 57. Also, in REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (SERAP) & 10 ORS, V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 4 ORS where the Defendant challenged the standing of the 1st Plaintiff on grounds that it has not been affected in any way by the acts attributed to the Defendant and that there is no public interest to legitimize the claim, the Court held in para 58 that: “……a strict legal interpretation of the concept of victim, for the purpose of human rights protection, has evolved into a more flexible approach in order to allow other persons, not directly affected by the alleged violation, to have access to Court, and seek justice, on behalf of the actual victim and to hold accountable the perpetrators” See also STELLA IFEOMA NNALUE & 20 ORS V. FRN ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/15 PG. 6- 8. 54. The killings of over 800 people and destruction of property worth several billions of naira is clearly a matter of Public interest for which the 1st Applicant whose legitimacy as an NGO is recognised, is legally empowered to bring this action on behalf of the affected communities and the Court so holds. 58. Another reason the Respondent adduced to oust the 1st Applicant from this suit is premised on the requirement of authorisation to institute this action. The court notes the requirement of mandate as of paramount importance when suing in a representative capacity as seen in the decisions of this Court in BAKARY SARRE & 28 ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11, PG 72, PARA 38, AND MME AZIABLEVI YOVO & 31 ORS V TOGO TELECOM & REPUBLIC OF 15