Furthermore, it is imperative to ascertain the plank upon which the Plaintiffs’ application is based. That is to say, on whose mandate is this action brought? It is trite that when approaching the Court in a representative capacity, resort must be had to a mandate or authorization. Having established that the Plaintiffs are a people within the meaning of the above article cited, the issue of mandate cannot be dispensed with. In Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and Others v. Mauritius (Communication No. R.9/35) 9 April 1981, the United Nations Human Rights Committee pointed out that to bring an Application before it, an individual must be 'actually affected' by the act complained of and that 'no individual can in the abstract, by way of actio popularis, challenge a law or practice claimed to be contrary to the Covenant'. In Mikmaq V Canada Communication No. 78/1980, views adopted on 29th July 1984, where a communication was brought by a representative of the Mikmaq tribal society who claimed that Mikmaq peoples’ right of selfdetermination had been violated by Canada. The Committee held that the complaint was inadmissible on the basis of lack of locus standi of the tribe’s representative in light of failure of the Grand council, in its legal entity, to authorize the author. See also Nosa Ehanire & 3 ors V. Federal Republic of Nigeria JUDGMENT N°: ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17 unreported. 26