the currency. It is not only bank officials who can perform such functions. Since the plaintiff asserts the affirmative of the issue, he assumes the burden of producing evidence that he did declare the amount on him. All the evidence points to the conclusion that he did not declare it and he could not take solace in the fact that there was no bank official there at the time. If the law says there must be a declaration, it is the duty of the passenger to comply with it however cumbersome the process might appear to be. The· plaintiff is also not saying that only bank officials were authorised under Liberia law to receive the declaration. Having regards to the mode the plaintiff carried the money it is more probable than not that he did not intend to declare that money. The court finds the plaintiff did not declare the mone y at the airport to any official of the defendant. LEGALITY OF CONFISCATION ORDER 25. Counsel to the plaintiff argued that the confiscation order made by His Lordship Judge Kaba of the First Judicial Circuit, Criminal Assizes 'C' Monteserrado •• County, Liberia, which directed the Central Bank of Liberia to keep custody of the ·: • II>:" plaintiff's money pending the conclusion of criminal investigations into the matter was nulI, void and or no effect as no notice of the proceedings was served on the plaintiff to enable him defend his rights. Counsel continued that this is an infraction of the provisions of Section 15-119 of An Act to Amend the New Penal Law, Title 26 as amended, of the Liberian Code of Laws Revised and the 1986 Constitution of Liberia . Plaintiff says he was deported to Nigeria before the proceedings leading to the confiscation order were commenced. 26. Counsel to the defendant rejected the arguments of the counsel to the plaintiff and contended that the confiscation order was properly made as the laws of Liberia allow for the confiscation of proceeds suspected to derive from criminal activities pending final determination in order to prevent the criminal having access to proceeds of the crime. Counsel continued that if the applicant believed that any of his rights had been or were being violated, he had the full protection of the law and could have sought legal redress. He concluded that the applicant chose not to pursue the matter despite the availability of legal remedies. 10