committee (annexure C) addressed to the Chief Justice which contains the names of the members as follows; Hon Justice Kassim Zannah, Hon Justice Abdullahi Yusuf, Mrs R. I. Inga Council member with Mrs Balogun A.M (Mrs) as the secretary 20. The Respondent therefore urged the Court to dismiss the application as frivolous, speculative, vexatious, baseless and incompetent and an abuse of court process. 21. Analysis of the Court on the preliminary objection of the Respondent. The Court in the course of the deliberation, heard the parties on the preliminary objection of the Respondent and dismissed the objection but reserved its reasons to the Judgment which is hereunder produced. Based on the objection, the issues for determination are as follows; a) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. b) Whether the Court can review decisions of National Courts. c) Whether a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the Respondent. 22. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this application. The Respondent claimed the court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter on the grounds that the Applicant’s complaint borders on defamation and not human rights. The Court has in several cases held that the mere allegation of human rights violation is enough to confer jurisdiction on and its jurisdiction is established once the facts brought before it relate to human rights violation and where the main purpose of the application is for the Court to find that there is an occurrence of such violation in a Member State. See ALHAJI MUHAMMED IBRAHIM HASSAN v. GOVERNOR OF GOMBE STATE & ANOR JUDGMENT NO ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/12, AND EL HAJI MAME ABDOU GAYE v. THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL JUDMENT NO ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/12 @ pg. 9 23. The facts of this case are premised on the allegation that the Committee that sat on the petition against the Applicant was irregular in its composition as such a violation of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing contrary to Article 7 of the Charter and further that the publication of the warning letter in most media space caused him anguish and pain and such violates his right of freedom from mental torture contrary to Article 5 of the Charter. Since the allegation of the Applicant 8