constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be. Moreover, the waiver must not run counter to any important public interest. It must be pointed out that the grant of applications before a Court is at the discretion of the Court, albeit judicially and judiciously. The fact that a party is unsuccessful in any application should not be misconstrued as a violation of the party’s right to fair hearing. In JUSTICE PAUL UTTER DERY & 2 ORS v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19, as it relates to fair hearing, the Court found that failure to secure a favorable judgment is not tantamount to a denial of the right to fair hearing. The Court however notes the statement by the 1st Applicant indicating his unwillingness to participate in his own trial and that such statements constitutes a waiver of right thus the maim that no wrong will emerge out of an act for which consent has been given in other words “volenti non fit injuria.” It is important to note here that the mere presence of armed guards in the course of a trial at the National Court which the Respondent did not deny cannot not the mean absence of Equality before the Law and cannot be interpreted to amount to a violation of the Right to fair trial and on this note the court observed that there is no proof before it from the Applicant to support the allegation that the entire trial process at the National Court was marred with intimidation and deprivations of access to counsel of choice. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent did not violate the Applicants Right to fair hearing and fair trial. In the circumstances as in the instance case the Court hold that the Applicants Rights to fair hearing was not violated by the Respondent and the court so hold. ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT OF THE GAMBIA CONTRAVENES THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE AFRICAN CHARTER. The Applicants avers that a fundamental issue to the effect that Section 5 of the Public Order Act of the Gambia violates Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. They argued that the provisions of the said Article 5 are too stringent and amount to turning “the fundamental human right of assembly, peaceful protests, processions and 30