FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR., (2016) JUDGMENT N°: ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/16, (UNREPORTED) where the Attorney General of Nigeria was sued together with the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court held that it “has in a plethora of cases held that only Member States, signatories to the treaty, can be sued before this court”. 57. Following from all the above stated jurisprudence, the objection that the 2nd Respondent being an individual, cannot be sued before the ECOWAS Community Court is sustained and consequently, the Applicant’s action against the 2nd Respondent is hereby struck out. The 2nd Respondent is disjoined from the case. 58.The Respondent further submits that if the Court admits the case, it will invariably involve the interpretation and application of the domestic laws of the Respondent, which it claims the Court is bereft of competence to do. The Respondent’s submissions are partially correct to the extent that this Court has in several of its jurisprudence, affirmed that it does not seek to interpret the national laws of member states in abstracto. 59.This position of the Court aligns it with the similar position adopted by the European Court of Human Rights where in its determination of the role between the domestic courts of member states and the European Human Rights Court, the latter held in the case of M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO - 28005/12 - Chamber Judgment [2015] ECHR 661 (07 July 2015) that: “However, the Court would recall that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic jurisdictions. It is primarily for the national 24