shall be remanded pending the fulfillment of her bail conditions. The Defendant has not proved the grounds in which the Plaintiff is made responsible for producing the accused when the accused was still remanded even at the time of discontinuance. There is no evidence to show that the Plaintiff as of fact stood surety for the accused. It is trite that a lawyer’s withdrawal of legal representation implies that such counsel has become functus officio with the clients brief and other matters related thereto. On the right to freedom of expression and dissemination of information, the Plaintiff has not proved how that right has been violated in relation to the seizure of his property. This allegation is therefore not tenable. On the right to privacy, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) protects individuals from arbitrary interference with their privacy or correspondence. Private life is a broad concept which is incapable of an exhaustive definition. It is for the Applicant to establish interference which in the instant case, the Plaintiff has proved. See CAMPBELL V. UNITED KINGDOM ECHR 25th March 1992. The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is pari-materia to Article 12 of the UDHR guaranteeing the right to respect for private and family life, home and Correspondence which provides thus: 23