to subsection (4) of this section, as applying in the case of a person arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a capital offence; and (b) as invalidating any law by reason only that it authorises the detention for a period not exceeding three months of a member of the armed forces of the federation or a member of the Nigeria Police Force in execution of a sentence imposed by an officer of the armed forces of the Federation or of the Nigeria police force, in respect of an offence punishable by such detention of which he has been found guilty. of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Learned Counsel contended that the trial which was malicious entitled the Applicants to recover loss of earnings as stated in their Applications. 15. He contended that the facts of the case and legal arguments already developed proved that there was no reasonable cause justifying the Defendants acts. 16. He relied on the jurisprudence of VVll BRAHAM vs. SHOW (1669) 2 WMS Sound 47a, to state that in tort, the person in actual possession can sue in conversion, because it not necessary to prove title of absolute ownership. The Learned Counsel to the Applicants also relied on the case of ROBERT v. WYATT (1810) 2 Taunt 268 and Clerk & Lindsell on Tort 17th Edition to the effect that a person who is entitled to temporary possession of a furniture can sue in conversion, even against the owner. Thus, the Applicants who were in possession can sue in tort for trespass for violation of right to property and conversion of MT Capbreton against the Defendants. They further contended that no doubt they can also sue under Article 21 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as dispossessed persons. The essential element is the possession and not the title, because their right to adequate compensation is further consummated by the fact that they have proprietary right in the vessel. 17. He also relied on Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to the effect that the Defendants damaged their reputation, and attempt at their dignity by presenting them before the world press as thieves of Nigerian crude oil. This is a case of inhuman treatment and the worst case of indignity of their person. Consequently, the world marine industry is fully aware and no one will want to employ a thief, thus minimising their chances of getting reemployed all through the rest of their lives. The Learned Counsel to the Applicants contended that Nigerian crude oil was never declared missing. This was therefore illogical and problematic as proof since the certificate of origin showed that the cargo was from Abidjan. 18. He concluded that his clients were entitled to compensation as the charges against them are illegal, null and void pursuant to Article 97 of the UN Convention on the Law of the sea (1982) and that indeed; all the proceedings that followed are equally void. Consequently there can be neither prosecution nor valid trial. Concerning the Defendants 19. In their Brief, the Defendants denied the allegations of the Applicants, stating that the arrest, detention and the prosecution against the Applicants were lawful pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and regular application of the law; this was why after they were brought before the Federal High Court in Lagos Nigeria on two main charges against them and which were stealing and transferring crude oil on the coast of Forcados in the territorial waters of Nigeria, pursuant to section 3 (17) (a) and (b) of the Miscellaneous Offenses Chapter 410 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990 as amended; The Defendants thus contended that the Applicants should [sic] vested the right to their claim. To support their defence arguments, the learned Counsel to the Defendants relied on the 1st Judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria of 1st March 2004 which maintained the charges against 10 of the 15 detained Applicants, interrogated 12 witnesses cited by the Defendants and four (4) cited by the Applicants. At the end of the trial, the Judge made his decision discharging and acquitting the ten of them on the grounds that the incident occurred outside the Nigerian Territorial waters whose limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of Nigeria; the Defendants claimed that in arriving at this decision, some important declarations were made in relation to fact that the Applicant were dealing in crude oil but that the act did not occur in the Nigerian Territorial waters and that with these fact the Nigerian Court could not confer jurisdiction, despite the authorization of the Ministry of Justice for the Applicants to be prosecuted. The Defendants raised two arguments to support their defence, contending that the act was punishable and that the claim for damages and interest for the lost of employment is due to contract of employment which between the Applicants to their employer. They pleaded with the Court to reject the claims for damages and interest by the Applicants on the grounds that they were abusive, founded on speculation and unjust. 20. Indeed, the Defendants insisted on the fact that the Nigerian Court of first instance recognized it her decision that they were dealing in crude oil, though admitted that the Court could not confer jurisdiction in 7