15 In fact, Annexure A succinctly supported the above assertion when it stated that “no procedure as required for any member of the SPL, more so a very Senior Police Officer that had diligently served the SPL for up to a decade was followed. It follows that the Applicant was never given a hearing both at the initial stage of the purported dismissal as well as with regard to the petition against the Police Council’s decision to dismiss him. A further examination of Annexures B and C lends credence to the above reasonable conclusion. Specifically the Office of the Ombudsman (Annexure C) in exercise of its powers under the law having received Annexures A and B (a letter from the Applicant’s Counsel) made representations to the Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Defendant. Curiously, in answer to the representations, the Defenfants, in a letter dated 3 rd June 2013 (Annexure D) stated that: “………… the Police Council considered the above matter at its recent meeting and decided that there was no justifiable ground to reverse the decision dismissing Mr. Mohammed El Tayyib Bah (the Applicant) from the Police Force.” It appears that the Police Council of the Defendant needed the testimony of spirits or God himself to agree that there were justifiable grounds for a review of a decision arrived at in blatant violation of the fundamental principles of fair hearing. This Court in Ugokwe V. Okeke (2008) / CCJ LR (P1) 149 at 164 had reiterated the principle that parties must be given an opportunity to be heard in any matter affecting their interest, in the following words: “The right to fair hearing is a human right derived from the concept of fair hearing, in this regard, a fair trial is not only seen as an additional instrument for protection of the rights of defence, Largo sensu, but also in a political context, where the legislative and jurisdictional activity, the judicial