TOGO ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/12, ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17. NOSA EHANIRE & 3 ORS V. FRN 59. This said, the Court has a different approach when it relates to matters of public interest as captured hereunder. “However, exceptions to this rule exist. These include but not limited to cases of collective interest (usually referred to as public interest litigations) and the non-victims receiving authority to act on behalf of the victims or their close relations. It is noteworthy that public interest litigations refer to cases in which Courts allow volunteers like Lawyers, Citizen Petitioners, NGO’s to bring actions on behalf of some victimized groups who ordinarily are without sufficient means of access to legal services or justice”. SEE In THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF FISCAL AND CIVIC RIGHT ENLIGHTENMENT FOUNDATION V. FRN (2016) ECW/CCJ/JUD18/16 & 2 ORS 60. In view of the above stated reasons, the Court holds that the 1st Applicant needs no authorization and possess the locus standi to approach this Court in a representative capacity. The Respondents objection in this regard is dismissed. 61. With regards to whether the 1st Applicant has the locus standi to institute this action for itself, this Court has maintained in its jurisprudence that a NonGovernmental Organization (NGO) cannot maintain an action as a victim of Human Rights violation. This position is supported in THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE MIYETTI ALLAH KAUTAL HORE SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSOCIATION V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2011) ECW/CCJ/RUL/11/12 where the Court held as follows: “Thus there is a clear distinction between these two classes of cases, one in which the corporate body sues as the victim and the other in which it sues on behalf of the victim, the victim here being identified as a human being. In the former situation the corporate body has no locus or capacity to sue, but in the latter situation, it has”. 62. In line with the Courts reasoning above, this Court holds that the 1 st Applicant being an NGO lacks the requisite standing to institute this action as a victim of human rights violation. The objection of the Respondent in this regard is therefore upheld. 16