13 Applicant in proper perspective. In fact, that Article totally encapsulates the principles of fair hearing enumerated above. Juxtaposing those principles with the facts of the case, the question that arises and as formulated by the Applicant is “whether the failure of the Defendant to afford the Plaintiff’s (Applicant’s) the opportunity to defend himself either personally or by legal representation before dismissing him has not violated the Plaintiff’s (Applicant’s) human right to fair hearing guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.” In order to answer this question it is necessary to once again review the facts of the case vis a vis the evidence produced by the Applicant in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. First, the Applicant was enlisted in the Defendant’s Police Force sometime in 1984 and subsequently promoted to an Acting Superintendent of Police. During the course of his duty, he had what was termed a “frank discussion” with the then Inspector General of Police, Mr. Walter Nicol who, on the basis of that, accused him of insubordination. He was also accused of having a link with the RUF, a rebel group then fighting the legitimate government of the Defendant. Without being heard, he was dismissed from the Defendant’s Police Force. In a bid to exhaust local remedies available to him, the Applicant appealed to the Police authorities for a reconsideration of the case. The Authorities found that the dismissal was without a hearing and therefore a flagrant violation of his human rights and termed the dismissal as lacking in legitimacy (see Annexure A). An analysis of Annexure A, which was made by the agents of the Defendants is very instructive in this regard. The report noted in part that Mr. Tayyib Bah (the Applicant) ……… expressed frankly certain issues of concern to the Police at that point in time to late Mr. Walter Nicol (The Inspector General at the time) which