- 26
-
8.1.8. So, the Court finds that the 1st Defendant is a proper party before this Court,
but we do not find any wrong doing committed by the said 1 st Defendant;
accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as to the 1 st Defendant for being frivolous,
speculative and uncertain, and vague and indistinct.
8.1.9. The 2nd Defendant: Attorney General of the Federation –
The complaint states: “The 2nd Defendant is the chief law officer in Nigeria charged
with duties of prosecuting offenders and violators of the laws in Nigeria in
collaboration with the 6th Defendant as investigating authority.” See count four of
the complaint.
8.1.10. Further as to the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiffs state:
“The law requires the 1st Defendant member state, the 2nd, 5th
and 6th Defendants to investigate and inquire into the 3rd and
4th Defendants violation and desecration of the laws and
prosecute and convict them appropriately in accordance with the
laws.” See count 13 of the complaint.
8.1.11. We note that these are the only references to the 2nd Defendant. As we stated
in regards to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiffs do not state that they reported any crime
or other action to the 2nd Defendant or any other Defendant for that matter, and that
such person (Defendant) failed to take any action toward the complaint nor do the
Plaintiffs say what if anything or who prevented them from lodging and or pursuing
their complaint of criminality.
8.1.12. The second observation we make here is that the 2 nd Defendant is a
functionary of the Government, that is, a cabinet minister in the government. In such
an instance, he is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Community Court of Justice.
See, Center for Democracy and Development and Center for Defense of Human
Rights and Democracy, Plaintiffs, vs. Mamadou Tandja and the Republic of
Niger, Defendants, as reported in 2011 CCJELR 105.