determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State”: See Hissein Habre v Republic of Senegal ( ). In the instant case, the Applicants alleged specifically Human Rights violations pursuant to Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) and Article 6 (1) of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), all the other relevant human right instruments relating to the right to work are in pari materia with these provisions. The Applicants in the instant case claim to have directly suffered from the alleged violations and as such are victims. The Court holds that mere allegation of human right is sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction. The criteria pursuant to the amended Protocol of the Court, Article 9 (4) which states that “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State” has therefore been met by the Applicants. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 9 (4) of the Protocol of the Court as amended it has jurisdiction to adjudicate in a suit brought before it for the violation of human rights which occurred in the Member State particularly for those treaties ratified by Member States of the Community. It is undoubtable that this Court has over the years dealt with series of cases bordering on jurisdictional issues. The Court has held in series of cases that a mere violation of human rights allegation is sufficient enough to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. It was so held in Bakarre Sarr & 28 ors. v the Republic of Mali (2011)CCJ/JUD/09/12 where the Court held that mere allegation of human right is enough justification to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In the case of Hadijatou Mani Koraou v The Republic of Niger (2008) CCJ/JUD/06/08 the Court further strengthened its position on this. Equally so, Article 9 (4) of the amended Protocol states that the Court has the mandate to determine cases of human right violation occurring in any member state. This article is the operative article that underlies the human rights mandate of the Court. On this note the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine this application that is before it. In view of the above the Court will now examine the other issues for determination. On the question of whether the exhaustion of local remedy is a precondition and a requirement to access this Court as the Respondent rightly wanted this Honorable Court to believe. The Respondent in his defense averred that this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to try this application pursuant to the reliefs sought by the 8