Order regulating Private Education in Niger, hereinafter referred to as (The 1996 Decree). The letters withdrawing the grant of authorization (annexure 7) quoted Articles 4, 6, 8, 9, 15,17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23,and 28 of The Decree 1996 as the basis for the revocation of the grant same having been violated by the Applicant. Thus Article 2 above referred and the articles listed in The 1996 Decree are therefore the ‘law’ to be subjected to the test of legality. 75. Having identified The 1996 Decree and Article 2 above referred as the ‘law’ under which the Respondent acted to dispossess the Applicant of its rights over the school, the next step is for the Court to examine the acts of the Applicant that allegedly contravened the referred Articles in The Decree 1966 to enable a proper determination as to whether the Applicant violated same to justify that the interference was in accordance with the Law. In examining these law, the Court notes that the details/provisions of the Articles allegedly violated in the 1996 Decree are not pleaded. The Court noted that the Applicant only stated that following an inspection of the school on the use of the license, it discovered the following misuse of the license by the Applicant: a) That the Societe Bedir Ltd once a one-shareholder company became subject of two ownership transfer without prior authorization. b) The Managers of the school were appointed by a notorised deed. c) The applicant did not cooperate with the inspectors during the inspection. d) Furthermore the inspectors found violation of Articles 4, 6, 8, 9, 15,17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23,and 28 of Decree no 96-210/PCN/MEN of 19 June 1996 fixing the methods of application of the Order regulating Private Education in Niger. 76. Having alleged that the Respondent violated the above listed Laws, the Respondent is obliged to show explicit proof of the same. It is trite law that he who alleges must provide convincing evidence to support the allegation. In DAOUDA GARBA V. REPUBLIC OF BENIN (2010) CCJELR Page 12.Para 34 & 35, the court held that: “cases of violation of human rights must be backed by indications of evidence which will enable the Court to find that 25