28 - “11. The Plaintiffs’ state that the 3rd Defendant Presidential candidate Fund Raising of N21.27 Billion violated the rights of the Plaintiffs of equality before the law and to freely choose representative in a level playing field for all the Presidential candidates at the election in accordance with the provision of the law.” 8.1.15. All these are allegations of the conduct of an individual, and we have already declared that this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over the persons of individuals. Therefore, the complaint as to this individual is hereby dismissed; that he is the President is irrelevant as to the admissibility of this case against and individual. 8.1.16. The 4th Defendant: People’s Democratic Party – The complaint states: “The 3rd Defendant is the sitting elected President of Nigeria and the nominated presidential candidate of the 4 th Defendant, a registered political party in Nigeria in the February 14, 2015 presidential election as scheduled.” See count 5 of the complaint. 8.1.17. As can be seen regarding the 4th Defendant, the Complaint only mentions in passing that the 4th Defendant is a registered political party in Nigeria in the February 14, 2015 presidential elections. It does not say anything further as to what specific act the 4th Defendant committed, which constituted a violation of the Plaintiffs’ human rights. Of course, the more substantial issue is that the 4th Defendant is not a Member State of ECOWAS and as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Community Court of Justice. This legal inhibition thus renders this suit inadmissible, and therefore we are compelled to dismiss this case as to the 4th Defendant. Chief Frank Ukor v. Rachad Laleye and Alinnor ECW/CCJ/APP/01/04;Moussa Leo Keita v. Republic of Mali, ECW/CCJ/APP/05/06. 8.1.18. Next, we go to the 5th Defendant: The Independent National Electoral Commission. The complaint states in count 6 that: “6. The 5th Defendant is the Electoral umpire and agency of Government charge with the responsibility of conducting elections and monitoring compliance of electoral laws by registered Political Parties in Nigeria.” 8.1.19. Again, and as stated in respect of other Defendants, the complaint does not state in clear terms what acts of the 5th Defendant in keeping with its mandate spelled out above constituted a violation of the human rights of the Plaintiffs, which are cognizable before this Court.