3. Whereas the defendants in their summations indicated that no rights of the plaintiffs were violated upon based on the said Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and that there was no restraint of the plaintiffs within Nigeria and Benin and that the Protocol on Free Movement was not absolute as the Borders of Member States may be closed on reasonable cause and that Article 9(3) of Protocol A/PI/7/91 as amended is applicable as to make the cause of action statute barred. 4. Whereas the plaintiffs with regards to the jurisdiction of the Court submitted t h a t by virtue of Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol and Article 12(1) of the ACPHR. the Court has jurisdiction to determine the cases of alleged violations of human rights that occur in any member state and that the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.I/01/05) did substitute some provisions including Article 9 of Protocol (A/PI/7/81) and such substitution could not extinguish the plaintiffs' fundamental rights. 5. Whereas the Court affirmed that there was substitution of Article S of Protocol A/SPI/0I/05 with that of Article 9 of Protocol A/PI/7/91 of the Court to make the application justiciable for violation of human rights; Whereas the plaintiffs failed to prove that the claim was justiciable by the operation of Article 9(3) of Protocol A/PI/7/91 as amended and whereas the said Protocol was amended and substituted to the effect that the amended Protocol shall apply to cases that commenced in 2004; 6. Whereas the onus of proof was not discharged by the plaintiff in this case, and where such proof failed to attain sufficiency of evidence, the plaintiff would have failed to prove his claim and as such the reliefs must be dismissed and are hereby dismissed accordingly. 19