- 11 - 6.2.5. Jurisdiction is fundamental to any judicial proceeding. It must be clearly shown to exist at the commencement of or during the proceedings otherwise such proceedings no matter how well conducted and any judgment arising therefrom no matter how well considered or beautifully written will be a nullity and a waste of time…” Edet vs. State (2008) 14 NWLR (pt. 1106) 101 CA at pages 66-67 para. GB ratio 4. 6.2.6. Therefore, for purposes of this Ruling/Judgment, we shall dwell on only the legal issue of jurisdiction and or competency of this Court and of the ability of the Applicant to bring this suit against these Defendants. The outcome of this Ruling will lead the Court to determine if we can hear or entertain this suit and also the Applicant’s status and ability to bring this suit. This then will enable us to determine whether or not the human rights of the Applicant were indeed violated by any conduct (acts or omission) of these Defendants, either individually or collectively. 6.3. OBJECTIONS BY THE 4th DEFENDANT 6.3.1. That the case of the Plaintiffs should be dismissed in its entirety, same being frivolous, ill-conceived and an abuse of the process of this Honorable Court. 6.3.2. The Court should decline jurisdiction in this matter as none of the claims could be brought within Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court. 6.3.3. That the Court should decline jurisdiction in this matter because the real issue in controversy is between the Plaintiffs and the Peoples Democratic Party, 4 th Defendant, which is an individual party and not a State Party or against the Community or its Institution. Or, in the alternative, 6.3.4. An Order striking out the name of the 4 th Defendant from this suit on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction over it not being a State Party. 6.4. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE 6th DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINATING APPLICATION 6.4.1. That the grounds upon which this Defense is made, the Plaintiffs have woefully failed to establish any statutory duty which the 6 th Defendant has refused or neglected to perform in the mode prescribed by law.