- 32 - 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 8.1.32. The Preliminary Objection is challenging the competency of this Honorable Court for lack of jurisdiction to try this suit on the basis that the said suit is predicated on alleged breach of the Nigerian municipal law that is the Electoral Act of 2010 as Amended which is not actionable before this Honorable Court. And the Plaintiffs’ claim discloses no cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Objectors. 8.1.33. In arguing issue number one, the 1st and 2nd Defendants rely on the following laws: Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol [A/SP.1/01/05] amending the Protocol [A/P1/7/91] of the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS Article 9 (a – g) and (2 – 8). Inakoju Vs. Adeleke (2007) All FWLR [PT353] p 3 @87; also, The Registered Trustees of the Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project [SERAP] and Federal Republic of Nigeria on page 201, paragraph 1. 8.1.34. In arguing issue number two 1st and 2nd Defendants rely on the following laws: AdekoyaVs. Federal Housing Authority (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1099)539 at 551, paras, D – F; also in Fred Egbe Vs. Hon. Justice J. A. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (PT.47) 1 at 20. 8.1.35. The 1st and 2nd Defendants concluded that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties in this suit as there is nothing claimed against them in this suit. There is neither factual nor documentary evidence to support any claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Plaintiffs’ suit. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1. In argument before this Court, the Court asked the counsel for the Plaintiffs if, given the trend of events as they turned out eventually, whether he had considered discontinuing this suit since indeed the incumbent president and his political party, against whom the Plaintiffs had complained for violating his human rights to contest the 2015 presidential elections on a level playing field, had in fact lost the elections and conceded defeat to his main rival. Counsel responded in the negative, saying that he wanted this Court to rule on the issue so as to serve as a deterrent to other wouldbe violators of the elections law on fairness and equality before the law.