complaints on the alleged invasion and destruction of life and properties by some unidentified thugs. They further annexed newspaper publications and communiques of the joint meetings of the officials of Enugu/Kogi interstate boundary. This documents the Defendant failed to counter. The Defendant did not lead any evidence to controvert or disprove the allegation, neither did it produce any document to show that during the alleged crisis, measures were put in place to quell the unrest. It is not enough to state these facts without more. Every material fact must be substantiated with credible evidence. In FERNANDEZ ORTEGA ET.AL V. MEXICO. INTER.AM CT.HR (SER C) No.215 (Aug 2010), the Court noted that the State had the burden to provide conclusive information to disprove the alleged facts and having provided no evidence in contradiction of the Plaintiff’s claim has failed to discharge that burden and so found the State responsible. In the instance case, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the nexus between the alleged invasion and attacks amounting to a communal conflict and the violation of their right to existence and self-determination. The concept of self-determination as earlier noted denotes the right of a people to choose their own political status and determine their own form of economic, cultural and social development. On the other hand, a communal 20