On the Plaintiffs assertion of being granted a presidential pardon, the Defendant contends that if such pardon exists, then the Plaintiff should not complain of being unable to secure a new job. That the decision of the Defendant’s counsel in not filing a brief at the Supreme Court was based on technical grounds and not that he was pessimistic in the Appeal. The Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs being sought. PROCEDURE The Plaintiff on the 31st May, 2018, filed a motion seeking leave of the Court to lead evidence for the purpose of establishing facts already asserted in his initiating application. On the 22nd November, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff request to lead oral evidence after all pending interim applications have been dealt with in the presence of respective counsel of the parties. He gave oral evidence after which the parties were given opportunity to file written addresses if they so wished to do. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION At the completion of the trial, one cardinal issue stands out for resolution as could be gleaned from both the written and oral procedures as follows: 12