*. | . | 21, Counse! for the Defendant State (Federal Republic of Nigeria) further averred that the sentence of the Applicant was awaiting confirmation by the appropriate authority when he brought his case before the Honourable Court. That indeed, Article 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended allows preventive detention in execution of a sentence or order of court in respect of a criminal offence for which an individual has been found guilty. Moreover, in regard to Section 148 of the Armed Forces Act [Armed Forces Act Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN)], a member of the Armed Forces accused of a crime may be detained in military custody while awaiting confirmation of the sentence imposed on him. He therefore concluded that Mr. Alimu Akeem was detained in accordance with the Law in force in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He affirmed that Alimu Akeem should have made he deemed prejudice. the best use of the channels the Army of the Federal of redress provided Republic of Nigeria had by the said Law if caused him any a2e Counsel for Federal Republic of Nigeria contended further that the Law in force in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the terms ana conditions obtaining in the Army are incumbent upon the Applicant as a member of the Armed Forces. He maintained that Alimu Akeem, Nigeria, is subjeckgase the..Law as a public officer of the Federal on the protection of public. Républic of offigers, [Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P41, LFN] and that in regard to Section 2(a) supra, he should have filed his case within three (3) months after the accrual of cause of action. That the Applicant is therefore bound to observe the condition precedent required by Section 148 of the Armed Forces Act before instituting the suit before the Honourable Court. 23» The Defendant State argued that in exercising its jurisdiction provided for in the new Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court as amended by the 19 January 2005 Supplementary Protocol, the Honourable Court must expressly take account of the domestic Laws of Nigeria, notably the ones cited above. a) 24, Counsel for the Federal Republic of Nigeria alleged that since the Applicant was sentenced by a competent Nigerian court for the offences brought against him, the ECOWAS Court cannot act as an appeal court and thus interfere with the decision made by the domestic court of e Member State. He cited the case law of the Court in relation to the judgment on the c ase concerning Fl-Hadj Mame Pret tha fires a ses ae } et « Abdou Gaye v. Republic of Senegal, 2€ January 2 Wd me He Turcther assertec that