identify themselves as the rightful owners of the land. This is the fulcrum of this case. The Plaintiffs in this case have misconceived the true meaning of selfdetermination as well as the purport of the provisions on self-determination. Insofar as the right to self-determination and existence falls within the competence of this court, the Plaintiffs have not disclosed how this right was violated. A Plaintiff cannot hide under the human right mandate of this Court to litigate matters that are entirely within the domain of domestic Courts and Institutions. Having examined the Plaintiffs application, the Court is of the view that the substance of the Plaintiffs’ allegation borders on the internal affairs of the State of Nigeria and does not disclose a violation under Article 20 and 22 of the African Charter. Furthermore the Supreme Court of the Defendant being the final abiter in that state has ordered the parties involved to resort to the National Boundary Commission to settle their dispute. In CDD V. MAMADOU TANDJA & ANOR, (2011) CCJELR, the Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality or legality of acts which come under the domestic norm and laws of authorities of Member States (vis-à-vis) violation of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples rights as raised by the Plaintiffs. 23