ANALYSIS BY THE COURT It is our view that the following issues call for determination: . Whether the invasion of applicants’ residence and seizure of his properties as alleged is unlawful and attributable to the defendant as to hold it responsible for same . Whether the actions of the Defendants agents in re arresting and detaining the Applicant without charge as they did is unlawful and a violation of Applicants rights as provided under Articles Article 6 of the African Charter , Article 9 of the international covenant on civil and political rights and Articles 3 and 13 of the Universal declaration of human rights Before going into the issues raised above it is necessary for the avoidance of doubt to clarify the content and limit of the present case. The Defendants, while addressing this Court relied on Section 3 of the fire arms Act Cap 28 which provides: “No person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm of one of the categories specified m Part I of the Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as a “prohibited firearm”) except m accordance with a license granted by the President acting im his discretion”. We submit that the above provision is not in anyway relevant to the case before this Court. Apparently, the Defendants have misconceived the matter before this Honorable Court to a criminal matter. A careful perusal of the Defendants amended defense shows that emphasis has been persistently made on the weapons discovered and seized at the Applicants 22