so far as the offences did not occur in Nigeria. They relied on page 38, 2nd paragraph lines, 7 and 8 of the judgment Delivered by the High Court of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. However, these arguments do not show any dealings in crude oil within the territorial waters as to bring about the application of the provisions of the laws of Nigeria referred thereto. 21. The Learned Counsel to the Defendants contended that it was the report established by the police which revealed a prima facie case which led to the filing of criminal charges against the Applicants. The Defendants maintained that the steps taken by Attorney General of Nigeria are pursuant to the provisions of provided under Section 174 × (1) The Attorney-General of the Federation shall have power - (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly; (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and (c) to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person. (2) The powers conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation under subsection (1) of this section may be exercised by him in person or through officers of his department. (3) In exercising his powers under this section, the Attorney-General of the Federation shall have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process. of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the action by the police which are legal as justified by the provisions of Section 4 of the Police Act. They relied on the Supreme Court of Nigeria case of AJIBOYE vs. STATE (1995) 8 NWLR pt 414 pp 386 - 512 at 410 ratio 5 & 6. The Defendants further stated that the action of the Applicants before this Honourable Court is statute barred by virtue of Article 9 (3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court which states that: "Any action by or against a Community institution or any Member of the Community shall be statute barred after 3 years from date when the right of action arose." 22. Consequently, the Defendants maintained that damages in this case arose on the 16th of July 2003 are punishable. To do this, the Defendants referred to page 9 of the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court of Justice to say that the suit was filed on the 30th of November 2006, this date is not correct because the Applicants and the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants stated that the arrest was on the 17th of July 2003 and not on the 16th of July 2003. However, the Defendants relied on the following jurisprudence and the Rules of the Court: a) UBA LTD vs. MICHEAL O. ABIMBOLA & Co (1995) NWLR pt 419 pp 259 - 384. b) IBRAHIM VS. JUDICIAL SERVICECOMMISSION (1998) 14 NWLR pt 584 PP 1 - 222 at page 6 ratios 182 (Supreme Court Division), c) Article 32 (3) of the Rules of this Court which provides that " In the reckoning of time limit for taking steps on proceedings, only the date of lodgment at the Registry shall be taken into account". 23. The Learned Counsel to the Defenders relied on the above cited jurisprudence and statutory authorities to conclude that the action of the Applicants was statute-barred and that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. The Defendants further stated that Applicants even tried to camouflage as to the actual date of infraction, but referred the Court to paragraph 41 of the Application which is a clear admission of the date the cause of action arose. The Defendants contended that it was also not an excuse that criminal prosecution was made against the Applicants because there was enough opportunity to file and enforce the rights of the Applicants as given the facts of the case it was made known that time of arrest was 17th of July 2003. They were arrested on the 16th of July 2003 and the charges were filed against them on the 27th of July 2004, which is after one year. The Defendants maintained that the provisions of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights cited by the Applicants is not relevant to this instant case, due to the fact that they were lawfully tried according to due and acquittal process pursuant to Nigerian laws. 8