The Plaintiff in his originating application not only itemized the subject matter of the proceedings, but also the particular Articles of the Human Rights Instruments violated and orders sought from the Court. There is nowhere either in the summary of facts presented, or in the orders sought by the Applicant can an inference of the Applicant’s case be founded on contempt proceedings be deciphered. A contempt proceeding refers generally to a willful disobedience of a Court Order or any misconduct before a court or action that interferes with the judges’ ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the Court. It is a proceeding commenced by the Court itself against a Party guilty of the Contemptuous act. Indeed, contempt proceedings and alleged human rights are two distinct aspects of law. It appears that the Defendant misread the Applicant’s Application, which to all intents borders on human rights violations. More so, the Defendant admitted that the National Court in its decision made an order that the Plaintiff’s bail, previously granted by the Court has in no way been breached or flouted. Similarly, it is obvious that the Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection is built on a misconception of the definition and import of due process. In other words, the issue of due process canvassed by the Defendant in this Objection does not relate to this case. The case pending before the National 27