000218 86.The Court therefore holds that, in the absence of any evidence that the reconstituted record of proceedings has been wholly or partly falsified, it dismisses the Applicant's claims and holds that the procedure before the High Court has not been vitiated as alleged by the Applicant. ii. Alleged failure to provide legal aid 87.The Applicant complains that he was not afforded legal aid before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He contends that by not doing so, the domestic courts failed in their duty as set out in Section 3, of the Criminal Procedure Act, thus violating Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 88.The Respondent State argues that though the right to defence is an absolute right in its domestic law, the right to legal aid is mandatory only in cases of homicide, murder or manslaughter; that for all other criminal cases, legal aid is granted only at the request of the accused if it is proven that he or she is indigent and cannot afford to pay lawyers' fees. lt therefore refutes the allegations made by the Applicant who, it claims, at no time during the proceedings, made any such request for legal aid, but rather chose to represent himself. 89.|n his Reply, the Applicant contends that as a layman, he was completely unaware that it was possible to be granted legal aid under the legal provisions, particularly , Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act as indicated in the Respondent State's Response. He further submits that, in view of the amendment to the Penal Code on the offence of armed robbery offence raising the minimum sentence from 15 years to a 30 years' imprisonment, it was incumbent on the Respondent State to grant him legal representation before its courts. *** 90.Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter provides that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: ...c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by Counsel of his choice." 2t \d-/\.-Q- 0 CT