The Respondent stated in its defence that at that point in time, kidnapping became a menace to the people of Imo State in Nigeria and lives of indigenes and visitors were threatened as a result of which investors started leaving the state in troops for fear of their life. That Ohaji Egbema where the Applicants hail from became the center stage for kidnapping activities. That an anti-kidnapping law was passed in 2009 to curb this crime. As a matter of fact, the issue of kidnapping has a devastating effect on any state so confronted in terms of its economy and safety of inhabitants and thus calls for such drastic measures to put an end to it. However, such measures have to be within the confines of law, having due regard to what is fair and just in the circumstance and avoiding acts that tend to violate the rights of others. It appears that the anti-kidnapping law of the Defendant, if it exists, prescribes punishment without recourse to trial by an independent tribunal. The international best practices is that where a law creates an offence, it envisages that any person accused of having committed such offence must be tried by a Court or any other independent tribunal where impartiality must be guaranteed and all other forms of due processes guaranteed. It’s against all known human right norms for punishment to be automatically imposed on a suspect without the necessity of a trial. Such a law is approbices, punitive, obnoxious and indeed and exhibition of the highest point of impunity. If this kind of practice is allowed under any guise then all of us are endangered species. Human rights are inter-connected so much as one relates to the other. In the instant case, there is no proof before the Court of any charges against the Plaintiffs perhaps for harboring kidnap victims or any charge whatsoever, neither is there any proof that the Plaintiffs were heard on the merits and the outcome of that hearing was a decision to demolish their property. There is yet nothing on the records to show that the Defendant actually investigated the alleged acts in a bid to ascertain the actual suspect(s), and the actual owner of the property prior to its decision to demolish. No proof of service of any demolition order, or proof that the Plaintiffs unequivocally waived their right to be heard. This is indeed sad. In CHIEF EBRIMAH MANNEH V. REP OF GAMBIA CCJELR 2004-2009 Pgs 191-192, the Court re-emphasized a Plaintiffs right to be heard which comprises the right to be presumed innocent among others. The Court held that the Plaintiffs right to be heard had been violated by the Defendant for its failure to put the Plaintiff before a competent court or tribunal for purposes of establishing its guilt or innocence. 14