16. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs' submitted that the actions of the two policemen of the Respondent/Defendant state and of that Ghana became the applicants/ the responsibility plaintiffs are of entitled the to compensation of the amount stated in their claim. LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT. 17. Learned Counsel to the defendant submits that the two police constables stated in Court during their trials that after they had offloaded the goods from the truck which they seized at the traffic interceptions, they were offered the sum of Forty Ghana Cedis (GHc 40.00), the equivalent of Twenty United States' Dollars (US$ -. 20.00) each in today's value by the person who had procured their services to rob the Plaintiffs of their goods; and in their testimony before the trial Court, the Constables did not reveal the identity of the person who hired them, but it was evident that they were acting privately and not on behalf of the defendant. 18. Learned Counsel to the defendant submits that by putting the two policemen on trial and securing a conviction, it had discharged its obligation to protect rights of all persons, including foreign nationals, under the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and under International Law and it owes no obligation to pay reparation to the Plaintiffs. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT. 19. This action was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Republic of Ghana for the payment of the sum of one hundred and forty-seven million, one hundred and forty-six thousand, five hundred and sixty-four CFA (XOF 147.146, 564), as compensation for loss incurred by the Plaintiffs as a result of the theft of their goods by the officers of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs hinged their demand for compensation on the contention that the Defendant is liable for the action of its officials and as such, under obligation to put the Plaintiffs in the same positions they were had the crime not occurred. Plaintiffs also maintained that the actions of 6