established in this case, was that simply clothing a claim with an allegation of
human rights made it necessary for the Court to act pursuant to Article 9 (4) of the
Supplementary Protocol.
25. Based on the above analysis, the Court therefore holds that it has jurisdiction to
hear the application brought forward by the Applicants in accordance with the
provisions of Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court 2009.
H. ISSUE 2: Whether the Applicants have locus standi to institute this action
26. The Respondent as part of its defense sought to challenge the locus standi of the
First to Seventh Applicants on the following grounds:
a. That the First to Seventh are not natural persons
b. That the First to Seventh Applicants are not victims and are therefore
in accordance with Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol of
2005 lack the locus standi to initiate this action. As by this provision
only victims can institute action for violation of their human rights.
c. That the Seven Applicants have not stated to the Court the capacity
in which they are bringing this action.
27. In view of the above, the Respondent sought the following reliefs from the Court:
i.
The Court to declare the application is inadmissible.
ii.
The Applicants to bear their own costs of the action.
28. With respect to the Eighth Applicant, the Respondent submitted that she is a
natural person but that her claim should be declared inadmissible for lack of quality
to act.
29. The records show that in answer to the Respondent’s objection on the grounds of
locus standi, the Applicants submitted that they are initiating the application
because their right to freedom of speech was violated by the Respondent, which
said right is an interest to be protected. The Applicants therefore urged the Court
to dismiss the submission by the Respondent and proceed to hear the application
on its merits.
30. The Court having examined the submissions of the Respondent on grounds of
locus standi and the reply of the Applicant will now consider the law as provided
for in the Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol of the Court of 2005.
8|Page