Under that law that the detention order has to made “in writing’, and same be delivered to the person so detained. The Defendants did not deliver any such order to the Applicant, neither have they shown this Honorable Court that there was a written order upon which they acted. During cross examination, DW1 said he wouldn’t know if a detention order was sought before detaining the Applicant. He also said he is not aware that the Applicant requested for their protection, but that it is within their mandate to detain if for any reason they discover that the Applicant’s life will be in danger. DWI also acknowledged that the Applicant was granted bail and the bail conditions were satisfied. On the question about the Applicant being detained not pursuant to any judicial procedure, DW1 However, admitted in the affirmative. the said State Security (Detention of Persons) Act to which the Defendants hinge their argument on has since been repealed on the coming into force of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. This is evident in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Certain Consequential Repeals) Decree No: 63 of 1999, LFN which provides as follows: . Subject to section 6 of the Interpretation Act ( which relates to the effect of repeals, expiration and lapsing of enactments), the enactments set out in the Schedule to this decree, including all amendments thereto, are hereby repealed or consequentially repealed with effect from 29" May 1999. The schedule in question included the State Security (Detention of persons) Act, 1990. In para 2.25 of the Defendants amended defense, the Defendant argued that the Applicants arrest is on further and fresh allegations independent of the charges upon which bail was granted. The question is, was the applicant charged to Court for the said “further and fresh” allegations” 37