There appears to be a gross inconsistency between the purported anti-kidnapping law and the Respondents 1999 Constitution (as amended). The legislation authorizing a demolition without hearing persons so allegedly involved and rendering other innocent inhabitants homeless is blatantly and rapaciously unconstitutional and grossly incoherent with the provisions of the constitution. Section 1 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states: “this Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria” Section 4 (5) of the same Constitution directs that: “if any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void”. The Respondent’s Constitution guarantees the right to be presumed innocent, the right to be heard and the right own property. There is no provision in the Constitution that guarantees punishment without being tried and convicted of an offence. There is also an inconsistency between the anti-kidnapping law and the International human right Treaties. A country that ratifies a treaty is legally obligated to protect the rights it describes. It is trite that where a national law or legislation is inconsistent with the international laws on fundamental rights or in derogation from fundamental rights, such law is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void. Article 4 of the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) provides: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society”. In Abacha and Others v Fawehinmi (2001) AHRLR 172 (NgSC 2000); the African Commission ruled that “the African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights (ACHPR) is domestically enforceable, with its status higher than any ordinary legislation in Nigeria. It further held that the Charter possesses a greater vigor and strength' than any other domestic statute….” This implies that in the event of any conflict between the African Charter on Human Rights & Peoples Rights (signed, ratified and domesticated by Nigeria in 1983) and any Act of the National Assembly; the African Charter prevails. 16