to due process. The plaintiff rather recognized that he was arrested, tried and convicted. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff not being a diplomatic agent of the Defendant at the time of his arrest and not being arrested on account of actions or conduct carried out in the exercise of his official duty, is not entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the United States of America. i. The Defendant also contends that the ECOWAS Convention on Privileges and Immunities is only applicable to ECOWAS Member States. The issue of the Plaintiff’s incarceration in the United States, the subject matter of this proceedings is a matter between the Government of the Defendant and Government of the United States which is not a member of ECOWAS. j. That the Plaintiff’s Counsel in the statement of facts only intended to mislead the Court. According to the Defendant, “Plaintiff’s pleas in law, specifically on page 6 of the Plaintiff’s application recites/ quotes Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations but cites same as Vienna Convention on Consular Relations being fully aware that the provision of the law grants immunity to diplomatic agents and not Consular Officers”. K. Furthermore, the Defendant also contended that Articles 2, 3, 4,5,6,7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right relied on by the Plaintiff are not supportive of the Plaintiff’s theory and the facts and circumstances of this case. In Conclusion, the Defendant contended that based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff was not arbitrarily arrested, deprived his right to personal liberty, neither was he deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions p. 9