The facts of the case have been succinctly outlined in the majority judgment, we adopt them as ours. We have read the reasoning in the majority judgment and unfortunately do not agree with it. In Application N° 001/11 Femi Falana vs African Union Ngoepe and Thompson JJ. we dissented - Akuffo, We adopt the dissenting opinion in that case as if the reasoning is herein reproduced, and are indeed fortified all the more by the submissions made by the Applicant herein. The Applicant contended that ‘With respect to the promotion of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the ACHPR (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Article 34(6) particularly violates Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the ACHPR. .., In all these provisions, the Charter stresses the right of every individual to have access to justice; it stresses the equality of parties before the law. However, by operation of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, all victims of human and peoples’ rights in countries which have not expressed their acceptance of the Court's competence for cases brought against them are without access to any justice whatever.’ He argued that, ‘This restriction placed on the enforcement of human and people’ rights by Article 34(6) should further be placed in the light that human rights are not rights granted by states, but rights that attach to each individual person by virtue only that he