2005 was without justification, abusive and their dispossession of MT Capbreton on the above mentioned dates, as well as in parading them before the world press in Nigeria in 2004 as thieves of Nigerian crude oil was unjustified being that the spot of arrest was at 16 nautical miles outside the territorial waters off the coast of Nigeria; and that they were only rendering assistance to a distressed vessel pursuant to the provisions of Article 98 of the UN Convention of 1982 on maritime law. B. He further relied on section 220 of Merchant Shipping Act Cap M 11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which permitted master or person in charge of a ship to in so far can render such assistance to every person found at sea in danger of being lost. He relied on the case of QUEEN V. KEYN (1986) 2 exch Div. 63 where the House of Lords represented by Justice Cockhurn stated, "that the rules of International Laws on the seaward boundary of coastal states did not extend to the sea" C. He further relied on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Nigeria: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE NO.2 (2002) 6 NWLR (PT 764) 542, which fixed the boundary of the sea and the boundary mark of low water and maintained that the low water mark form the boundary of the land territory of not only the eight coastal states of Nigeria but equally that of the entire country. He also relied on the case QUEEN VS. KEYN (supra) to say that the Parliament can legislate on the limit of territorial waters which is beyond the low mark and that any exercise of judicial power beyond the area of competence of Nigeria will amount to a violation of the fundamental principles and would be declared unconstitutional. 10. He further relied on section 12 (1) × No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly. of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which stipulates that: "no treaty shall have the force of law unless same is domesticated as the Laws of Nigeria", and based on this, the law that domesticated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, he maintain that the Defendants accosted and apprehended the Applicants at 16 nautical miles beyond the territorial waters from the coast land; which is 12 nautical miles that is authorized. He recalled the jurisprudence of Queen vs. Keyn (supra) to contend that the Nigeria and her Courts are bound by the laws made by the National Assembly (Parliament mentioned above); he referred to section 1 (17) of the Miscellaneous Act to support his argument and which states that the said law deals with transactions in petroleum within 12 nautical miles of the coast and not beyond it; or 16 nautical miles. He added that even if the location of the arrest is at the exclusive economic zone, the Applicants will not be said to have committed an offence more or less violate the conditions provided by the regulations on the exclusive economic zones. These conditions are as follows: - Case of the breach of fishing right pursuant to Article 73 of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea; - Prohibition of the Transport of slaves pursuant to Article 99 (a) of the same United Nations Convention; - Seizure of a private ship or aircraft pursuant to Article 105 of the same Convention; - Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances pursuant to Article 108 of the UN Convention; - Unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas pursuant to Article 109 of the UN Convention; - Right of hot pursuit of an escaping vessel such as provided in Article 111 of the same Convention. 11. The Learned Counsel to the Applicant equally relied on Article 56 and 58 of the UN Convention of 1982, on the Laws of the sea above cited which authorizes states to make rules and regulations regarding the 5