of them. The acquittal of some, among the accused persons, therefore, by itself, cannot be said to be a violation of human rights. 108. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the procedure the domestic Courts adopted in finding the first and second appellant guilty and reaffirming their sentences while quashing the conviction and setting aside the sentences of the third and fourth appellants did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter. 109. The Court, therefore, dismisses the allegation that the domestic Courts erroneously acquitted the Applicant’s co-appellants while affirming his conviction and sentence. iv. Alleged failure to permit representation by legal practitioner of choice 110. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right to legal representation contrary to Article 7(1) of the Charter. Specifically, his grievance is that he was not allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice. * 111. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s submission and contends that the Applicant is raising this allegation as an afterthought as he did not raise it before the Court of Appeal. It submits, therefore, that this allegation should be dismissed. *** 112. According to Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the right to have one’s cause heard includes “the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of [their] choice.” 27