SERAP v. Nigeria, Ruling, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 and RUL. No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 (ECOWAS, Dec. 10, 2010) 1/25/21, 1:48 PM 34. All Defendants who filed preliminary objection requested the Court to dismiss the proceedings against them with substantial costs against the Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY THE DEFENDANTS 35. In response to the objection raised by those Defendants the Plaintiff contends that the arguments they presented are fundamentally flawed, based on mistaken principles of law, and cannot be sustained having regard to sound legal reasoning established by the Court's jurisprudence and other National and International jurisprudence. 36. The Plaintiff submits that, the 3rd, 5th ,6th , 8th & 9th Defendants' argument on its legal capacity before the ECOWAS Court cannot stand because it is based on the limited and outdated interpretation of standing, especially in matters of Human Rights. The Plaintiff pointed out that the doctrine of "locus standi" has since been relaxed in favour of public litigation. It relied on the case of Registered Trustees of the Socio - Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) vs. The Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor. Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/08/08. 37. On the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Defendants, the Plaintiff contends that the Competence and Jurisdiction of the Court is not limited to adjudication cases involving ECOWAS or Community Institutions. It submitted that the Court has both jurisdiction and the subject matter competence, to hear the present suit and that the Defendants are resident in the territory of a Member state of ECOWAS and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Honourable court. 38. The Plaintiff also contends that there is nothing in the Court's legal instruments ton suggest that the 4th - 9th Defendants have to be Members of the ECOWAS or Community Institutions before it can be sued before an international court like this one. 39. The Plaintiff stated further that the fact that the Defendants are private persons does not lessen their responsibility for the violations of Human Rights as guaranteed under the African Charter which the Court has correctly stated that it has jurisdiction to interpret and apply. He relied on article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS 1993, and the ruling in Registered Trustees of the Socio - Economic and accountability Project (SERAP) vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor(Supra). He also referred to the case of Alhaji Hummani Tijani vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 Ors. Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/01/06 and the case of Chief Ebrimah Manneh vs The Republic of the Gambia Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/03/08. 40. The Plaintiff also contends that under International Human Rights Law, people whose rights are violated should have access to effective remedy and that multinational corporations like the 3rd - 9th Defendants have obligation under International Law not to be complicit in Human Rights violations. He referred to article 10(c) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 amending the Protocol (A/P.1/7/91)relating to the Court. 41. In addition to that, the Plaintiff stated that the present suit is primarily based on the violations by the Defendants of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples; Rights, which has been ratified by the Nigerian government (a member of ECOWAS) and incorporated into Nigerian domestic laws, and therefore constitutes sufficient source of enforceable obligations on http://www.worldcourts.com/ecowasccj/eng/decisions/2010.12.10_SERAP_v_Nigeria.htm Page 6 of 13