That by the admission of the 1st Plaintiff that the Chairperson’ House of Committee on Public Petitions had asked her to coordinate other prostitutes, it is clear that the plaintiffs belong to a syndicate of organized prostitutes. That there is no international convention, domestic law or culture in Nigeria that recognizes prostitution as a legitimate business; it is actually a criminal offence to indulge in prostitution in public places. The Defendant states that the activities of the plaintiff (prostitutes) are injurious to the moral life of the FCT and a crime under the Nigerian law, particularly the Penal code, applicable to the FCT. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence and restated that their averments are true and personal experiences suffered in the hands of the men of the AEPB, Nigerian Police, Nigerian Military and Man O’ War, all Agents of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs state that this case has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of prostitution and is not a campaign for the legalization of prostitution. The Plaintiff state that the person described as Man O’War is a de facto Agent of the government as he was being used by the AEPB and Nigerian Army to harass the 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs restate that it was the Chairperson of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Public Petition (also an Agent of the Nigerian government) that 17