- 19 6.8.6. The 1 , 2 and 3 Defendants who symbolize the State are the ones sued as the principal violators and abusers of the state powers and who reside at the State House by virtue of their election thereto and not the 4th defendant who is joined as a nominal party and sponsoring political party of the 3 rd Defendant candidacy at the 2015 presidential election. st nd rd 6.8.7. This case is not between the Plaintiffs and the 4th or 5th Defendants as none of them live in the State House and could have had access to the State House to organize any fund and could have had access to the State House to organize any fund raising dinner without the invitation and authority of the 3 rd Defendant presidential candidate and the other way round as no political party is allowed to use the State House for fundraising more so at election time without intending to intimidate and violating the rights of the other opponents including the Plaintiffs to participate on the basis of equality before the law. 6.8.8. This is a typical case of violation of human rights with the principal (3 rd ) Defendant state actors as principal violator to humiliate the Plaintiffs opponent at the scheduled 2015 presidential election in Nigeria amongst other violation traceable to him. The Grounds of Objection 6.8.9. The grounds of preliminary objection are clearly misconceived and should be discountenanced as lacking in merit and only diversionary to the real issue for adjudication by this Honorable Court. 6.8.10. The decision of the Court in Social and Economic Right Action Centre (serac) and another vs. Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001) and similar such cases have sought to reinforce member state citizens access to justice for the protection of human and people’s rights in the African context. 6.8.11. The problem of Africa being one of leadership and abuse of powers by elected leaders resulting to flagrant violation of human rights and rights of citizen of member states to freely participate in the government of their States and countries, more so on acknowledged violation of Plaintiffs’ right by the 3 rd Defendant notable State actor.