international law. He interchangeably invokes the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Convention on Consular Relations and the Optional Protocols 1963. It is obvious from Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961(Supra) that a Consular General is not one of the recognized persons to be accorded privileges and immunity because he is not a diplomatic Agent. The Defendant has rightly argued that the Plaintiff has surreptitiously presented the matter as if he is a diplomatic Agent. The Defendant has equally contested the status of the Plaintiff as even a Consul by maintaining that the Plaintiff is not a member of the Consular and diplomatic Corps of the Defendant. Above all, that his diplomatic passport may have been fraudulently obtained. For the avoidance of doubt, the issue to be clarified is whether the provision of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic Relations are applicable to Consular Officers as to afford them the same immunity as afforded diplomatic agents. In order to clarify the issue, one needs to look at the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which deals specifically with Consular Officers. The Vienna Convention grants limited privileges and immunities to Consular Staff or personnel in the receiving State. They can be arrested and prosecuted for criminal offences and other offences, except ones committed in the course of the performance of their duties. Article 41 provides that consular officers may not be arrested or detained except in case of grave crimes and following a decision by the competent judicial authority of the receiving State. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a Consul, he must appear before the competent authorities. Under Article 43 of the Convention on Consular Relations, the immunity of Consuls including the Consul General is restricted in both criminal and civil cases to acts done in the official exercise of their Consular functions. In Koeppel and Koeppel Vs. The p. 20