(a) That the plaintiffs were sentence to death by a competent Military in 1995 (b) That the applicants’ failure to appeal the decision of the Military Tribunal renders the Application to be an abuse of court process and a ploy to misguide this court by filing a fresh action on a matter that has already been concluded. The defendant strenuously argued that the right of appeal available to the applicants was to a higher court rather than the prerogative board to which they exhausted their efforts. (c) That the applicants failed to exhaust local remedies and hence the matter is not ripe to claim the attention of this court. (d) That the Applicants claim does not fall under fundamental human right. That the constitution of Federal Government protects qualify rather than unqualified right to life. That one of the qualification to this right is when life is taken in execution of a court order. (e) That issue of torture and inhuman treatment while in custody for the commission of a capital offense do not militate against the sentence imposed for the said commission. Such actions are violation that must be address by a separate action. (f) That the validity of the death sentence in Nigeria under the constitution of the Federal Republic cannot be questioned. 3.11. The defendant therefore prays for an order of dismissal of the Applicants’ Application with cost. 3.12. The Applicants, on the April 19, 2018, filed a Reply to the defendant’s Statement of Defense containing 3 counts in which a general denial of all the averments as are contained in the defendant’s Statement of Defense is interposed. 3.13. That the applicants have a valid cause of action as appeared on the face of the Application in that the entire process of the applicants detention starting from the arrest, purported trial, conviction, sentencing and continued detention in degrading and in human condition is violative of every known tenets of fair hearing as recognised by the Constitution of the Federal Republic, and the African Charter, other international instruments on Human rights which the defendant is a signatory to and in fact ratified. Page | 5