194. The African Commission finds no reason to depart from this conclusion arrived at by the Court of Appeal and in consequence holds that there has been no violation of Art 7(1) (b) on this account. Right to be assisted by Counsel 195. On the question as to whether the appellant was adequately defended, the AC HP R Court of Appeal of the Respondent State had this to say. “He was represented for some 5 1/2 months by Mr. Dikgokgwane whose crossexamination of those witnesses who were recalled was searching and vigorous. The appellant in his evidence was well led and the submissions to the trial court were full and detailed. At no time during the trial was there any complaint by the appellant about the adequacy of Mr. Dilegokgwane‟s services, nor at the appeal stage. Appellant only raised the matter in the proceedings before Kirby J. Like Kirby J, as stated earlier, I am of the view that the appellant was adequately represented----- I am unable to find that he did not have a fair trial or that the adequacy or inadequacy of his defense was such that it constitutes a special circumstance as to why the doctrines of functus officio or res judicata do not apply and that on this ground he be allowed a retrial. 196. From this analysis of the Court of Appeal there is no doubt that the right of the appellant to counsel of his choice was not undermined and that his defence was conducted adequately. There was therefore no room for invoking special circumstances warranting the ordering of a retrial. In light of the above the African Commission finds that there was no violation of Article 7(1) (c) of the African Charter. Delays in the Trial 54