In PROFESSOR ETIM MOSES ESSIEN V. THE REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA ECW/CCJ/RUL/04/07, the court held that the principal question to be posed is whether the facts of the case constitute a violation of human rights of the plaintiff and whether the rights being claimed by the Plaintiff are fundamental human rights guaranteed by the ACHPR and the UDHR. From the documents annexed to the Plaintiffs application, it is clear that the court granted the firm of the plaintiff leave to cease its representation on behalf of the accused which was categorically stated on the 01/08/07 where the court further held that the accused shall remain in custody pending the fulfilment of her bail condition. This alone without more evidence is capable of persuading the court to believe that the accused was in custody as at the time Plaintiff withdrew his representation. The Defendant on the other hand has not led any evidence to show that after the said date, the Plaintiff stood as surety for the accused hence a justification for the seizure. From the facts before the court, it can be inferred that there has been an interference with the Applicants rights as guaranteed under Articles 7 (1) & (2) of the African Charter, Articles 9 & 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The alleged interference has not been proved to pursue a legitimate aim. Even if it does, the circumstances and manner in which it was carried out, as well as its continuous nature makes it a violation. 28