the delay, the authorities could have envisaged separating the cases against the applicant and Mr S.V". 142. In the instant case, Respondent avers that the delay in finalising the matter could be attributed to the complexity of the case. The Respondent argues further that "what happened in effect was that as charges were being substituted and accused people were being charged in their individual capacity , it was delaying cases, they had to remit ab initio and start again. Unfortunately, the cases in Kenya went up to the Court of Appeal and they were never released , so we decided to just proceed with the Cases against the accused people". 143. The Respondent thus advances two main elements to justify the complexity of the case: one, the fact that there were ten accused persons and because of that it took a period of nearly two years from when the Applicants were arraigned to when the prosecution presented their first witness; and second, that there were other suspects and accused persons who were facing extradition trials in Kenya and the Respondent felt it prudent that all accused persons should be present before commencing proceedings. 144. First, this Court does not believe that simply because the accused persons are many a matter before a court is automatically complex . Besides , by linking the prosecutions of the Applicants to other cases pending before another Court whose proceedings were outside the control of the Respondent means putting the rights and personal liberty of the Applicants at the mercy of a foreign jurisdiction. This was a gamble and one which ended up badly, because in the end, the so-called 'other suspects ", facing extradition from Kenya never appeared. The fact that the Respondent finally decided to proceed with the trial of the Applicants after failing to secure the extradition of the 'other suspects' from Kenya, demonstrates that it was possible to separate the cases and prosecute them ab initio. The delay had therefore nothing to do with the complexity of the case and was as such unjustified. ii. 't\J 'ft Conduct of the Applicants 42 ~~ ~ ~ j~;?; ~~ ·