Even if he is suspected of expeditiously additional crime he is still entitled to being charged and either released or properly detained] on the orders of a competent Court, if not entitled to bail. It must be stated that the administrative or preventive detention of a person suspected of having committed a crime, as the Applicant in this case, does not disentitled him to due process. Any detention for a considerable period of time, as in this case over seven months is a gross violation of the right to personal liberty and security of the Applicant and a violation of the obligations of the Defendant as a signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human rights and Customary International Law. The Courts, Domestic, or International must rise up to the occasion by asserting their independence, providing succor to persons, even in the face of suspicion of having committed offences, no matter how heinous, discourage to the barest minimum executive lawlessness and impunity. If not so, our democratic society and its tenets will be drastically endangered. It may be the Applicant today and other persons tomorrow. The presumption of innocence which is the fulcrum of our criminal justice system must be preserved and respected no matter whose ox is gored. IN CONCLUSION, it is clear from the evidence and annexures produced before the Court, there is no legal basis for re-arrest of the Applicant after having been granted bail by three Domestic Courts of the Defendants. It appears that the sole aim of the re-arrest 1s to circumvent the grant of bail and by keeping the Applicant in custody through executive fiat unsupported by any law or order of Court. 48