procured. A Memorandum of Understanding between plaintiff's registered business and other companies offers further proof that plaintiff indeed had business interests in Liberia. 22. The fact that the money was strapped to plaintiff's body alone does not support the assertion by defendant that plaintiff had no legitimate business in Liberia. Although the method employed by the plaintiff in carrying his cash seems a little odd or even unorthodox, that in itself does not amount to any crime. It gives rise to reasonable suspicion of crime, which would be established or not after investigations, especially when coupled with the fact that the plaintiff did not declare the currency at the country of departure. A member state will be justified in carrying out investigations into the conduct of any person on its territory when it has reasonable cause, as in this case, to believe that there is crime committed by that person or to prevent that person from committing crime on its territory. Moreover, non-d eclaration of the money airport might before leaving the also raise suspicion that the plaintiff might have some impure motive for bringing in the money and that might give rise to legal consequences under Liberian laws ..and must be dealt with in the light of the laws prevailing at the material time. 23. Defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to declare the money in question but the plaintiff vehemently denied that and asked the defendant to prove same. It is trite learning that the one who makes allegation bears the burden of proving same. It is pertinent to note that in the Status Report issued by defendant's agents and which forms part of her pleadings they admitted that the Central Bank • did not have officials at the Roberts International Airport when the plaintiff arrived. One Mrs. Davis, the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Liberia whilst explaining the absence of the Bank's officials stated that the Bank had withdrawn its employees from the airport because other agencies at the airport, including customs, said that the Bank was carrying out their functions. I 24. However, it is not in dispute that the relevant laws of the defendant enjoin arriving passengers to declare the currency on them. To satisfy the law the passenger must look out for officials of the state, however designated, to declare 9